High Court Judges' Transfers: Five-Member Supreme Court Collegium Discusses Policy Framework

The news

The Supreme Court collegium has informally discussed a policy framework to end arbitrary transfers of High Court judges. The five-member collegium, chaired by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, held an informal discussion on preparing a framework that would eliminate the pick-and-choose approach in transfers. The other members are Justices Vikram Nath, B. V. Nagarathna, M. M. Sundresh and P. S. Narasimha. The framework remains under consideration and has not been announced as an adopted policy.

The discussion comes against a backdrop of inconsistent transfer practices. Until 2018, transfers were officially described as being in the interest of better administration of justice, a wording that ceased by 2020. The collegium recommended 18 transfers in 2022, 34 in 2023, 11 in 2024, 44 in 2025 and 12 by 12 November 2026. The new framework is also examining a provision for reconsideration if the Union government delays or does not implement a transfer recommendation for a long period.

What were the earlier undeclared grounds for transfer?

Under the earlier unwritten practice, a senior High Court judge could be transferred to prepare him or her for the chief justice's position in another High Court. Transfers were also used to improve coordination between a chief justice and senior judges in a court. Internal concerns about a judge's integrity or conduct inconsistent with judicial office, both inside and outside the courtroom, could also lead to a transfer recommendation. A common trend was the transfer of a judge perceived to be close to a former CJI or collegium member soon after that mentor retired, often seen as settling scores with former CJIs who had not accepted colleagues' recommendations during their tenure.

How will the new framework address past concerns?

The proposed framework is expected to require a substantive basis for every transfer, ending transfers made without a concrete reason. The Supreme Court has consistently opposed using transfers as punishment, although most transfers in the last five years have been perceived as responses to complaints against judges. The framework is also considering a mechanism to review recommendations that the Union government keeps pending or does not implement, which could reduce the scope for executive delay. Any final framework will need to balance transparency with the confidentiality required for judicial decisions and the independence of judges.