Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Sounds Alarm on Executive Interference in Judicial Transfers
Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has raised serious concerns about the functioning of the collegium system, warning that executive influence over judicial transfers poses a significant threat to judicial independence. Speaking at the Principal GV Pandit Memorial Lecture at ILS Law College in Pune, Justice Bhuyan described such interference as a "striking intrusion" into a constitutionally protected process.
Executive Influence in Judicial Transfers
Justice Bhuyan emphasized that "by the very nature of things, the Central Government can have no say in the transfer and posting of the HC judges. That is exclusively within the domain of the judiciary." He pointed to specific instances where the collegium recorded that transfers were made "at the request of the Central Government," which he argued reveals a dangerous pattern of executive encroachment.
The judge referenced last year's controversy when the Supreme Court Collegium modified its proposal to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court, instead recommending his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. The collegium explicitly noted that this change was made "on consideration sought by the Government."
Questioning the Rationale Behind Transfers
Justice Bhuyan questioned the fundamental logic behind transferring judges following adverse rulings against the government. "Why should a judge be transferred from one High Court to another High Court just because he had passed certain inconvenient orders against the Government? Does it not affect the independence of the judiciary?" he asked.
He warned that such actions undermine judicial independence, which he described as a basic feature of the Constitution. The judge cautioned that the judiciary's independence is particularly vulnerable to internal compromises within the institution itself.
Constitutional Morality and Judicial Responsibility
Justice Bhuyan stressed that "constitutional morality is the soul of democratic governance" and must outweigh arguments of public morality. He emphasized that constitutional courts are "by their very nature counter-majoritarian" and cannot simply endorse majority views without constitutional scrutiny.
"A constitutional court cannot say that because a view is subscribed to by the majority it will endorse it," he stated, adding that even if a position is opposed by many, "if one person's view is found to be constitutionally valid, the court has to uphold it."
Judicial Oath and Institutional Integrity
The Supreme Court judge reminded his audience that "as judges, we have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and to perform our duties without fear or favour, affection or ill will." He emphasized that it is primarily the duty and responsibility of judges to uphold the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process, including the collegium system.
Justice Bhuyan noted that after the judiciary had "repelled the Government's attempt to replace the collegium system," it had become even more crucial for the judiciary, particularly members of the collegium, to ensure the system functions independently.
The Foundation of Judicial Authority
In a powerful concluding statement, Justice Bhuyan observed: "The judiciary neither has the purse nor the sword. All it has is the faith reposed in it by the people. If that faith is breached, nothing will be left of the judiciary."
His remarks highlight growing concerns about maintaining the delicate balance of power between different branches of government and preserving the judiciary's role as an independent constitutional guardian.
