Supreme Court Judge Slams Collegium System Over ‘Government-Nudged’ Transfer

Supreme Court judge slams collegium for transfer on government nudge

In a courtroom moment that could reverberate through India’s constitutional history, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a scathing critique of the judiciary’s own collegium system—accusing it of yielding to executive pressure in the recent transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan. His blunt observation: “When transfers happen on a government nudge, the **collegium system controversy** is no longer theoretical—it’s real, and it’s dangerous.”

This isn’t just bureaucratic friction. It’s a direct challenge to one of the pillars of Indian democracy: an independent judiciary. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent, made during a routine hearing but loaded with constitutional gravity, has sparked urgent conversations among legal scholars, civil society, and citizens alike. If the judiciary—the final check on state power—can be swayed by subtle signals from the executive, who safeguards the rule of law?

Table of Contents

What Happened: The Transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan

Justice Atul Sreedharan, a respected judge of the Kerala High Court known for his incisive rulings on environmental and administrative law, was recently transferred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court—a move that raised eyebrows given its timing and lack of clear justification .

While judicial transfers are routine, this one stood out because of the context. Multiple legal sources indicated that the central government had informally expressed “discomfort” with certain rulings from the Kerala bench, particularly those involving federal-state disputes and environmental clearances. Though no formal request was made, the collegium’s decision followed shortly after these whispers reached judicial circles.

Justice Bhuyan’s Blunt Warning on Executive Influence

During a bench hearing on January 23, 2026, Justice Bhuyan didn’t mince words. “The moment we allow even a hint of executive preference to guide our transfers, we betray the Constitution,” he stated. He emphasized that the judiciary’s authority rests not on power, but on **public faith**—a trust that evaporates when decisions appear politically motivated .

He went further, questioning whether the collegium—meant to be a shield against government interference—was now becoming a conduit for it. “A ‘nudge’ is still a nudge. And if we respond to it, we are no longer independent.”

The Collegium System: How It Works and Why It Matters

Established through the landmark Second Judges Case (1993) and solidified in the Third Judges Case (1998), the collegium system gives the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most SC judges the exclusive authority to appoint and transfer judges—bypassing the executive entirely .

The intent was noble: to prevent political patronage and ensure merit-based, impartial judicial appointments. But critics argue the system lacks transparency, accountability, and diversity. Now, Justice Bhuyan’s remarks suggest an even graver flaw: vulnerability to soft pressure.

Key features of the current system include:

  • No written criteria for transfers or appointments.
  • No obligation to disclose reasons for decisions.
  • No formal role for the government beyond receiving recommendations.

Yet, as Justice Bhuyan implies, informal channels may be undermining this firewall.

Historical Context: Executive-Judiciary Tensions

This isn’t the first time tensions have flared. From the 1970s Emergency era—when judges were superseded for unfavorable rulings—to the 2015 National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) standoff, the battle for judicial autonomy has been constant .

The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, arguing it gave the executive too much say. But now, the fear is more insidious: not overt control, but quiet compliance. As former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee once warned, “The greatest threat to independence is not coercion, but consent born of convenience.”

Why Public Trust Is the Real Stakes

Justice Bhuyan’s core argument hinges on a simple truth: courts derive power from perception. If citizens believe judges are moved based on political comfort rather than administrative need, they lose faith in every verdict—from property disputes to constitutional challenges.

In an era of polarized media and eroding institutional credibility, the judiciary is one of the last bastions of neutral authority. Compromising that for the sake of bureaucratic harmony, Bhuyan argues, is a Faustian bargain.

Constitutional scholar Dr. Menaka Guruswamy called Justice Bhuyan’s statement “a necessary alarm bell.” She noted that while transfers are sometimes justified for regional balance or workload, the absence of transparent reasoning fuels suspicion .

Meanwhile, the Bar Association of India issued a statement urging the collegium to publish detailed justifications for all future transfers—a move that could restore accountability without sacrificing independence. For deeper analysis on judicial reforms, see our feature on [INTERNAL_LINK:india-judicial-transparency-reforms].

Conclusion: Defending the Fortress of Justice

The **collegium system controversy** triggered by Justice Bhuyan’s dissent is more than an internal squabble—it’s a constitutional crossroads. The judiciary must now choose: double down on opaque discretion, or embrace structured transparency that preserves independence while rebuilding public trust. As Justice Bhuyan reminded us, “The law is not just what we decide—it’s what people believe we stand for.” In that belief lies the true strength of Indian democracy.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top