Supreme Court Collegium Admits Change in Judge Transfer After Gove
TOI News livelaw.in, LAW, LAWYERS NEAR ME, LAWYERS NEAR BY ME, LIVE LAW, THE TIMES OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN TIMES, the indian express, LIVE LAW .IN, THE ECONOMIC TIMES
Collegium reverses earlier recommendation for Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer, citing a reconsideration sought by Centre
New Delhi -Thursday, October 16, 2025
In a striking admission, the Supreme Court Collegium has revealed that it altered its earlier recommendation regarding a judge transfer after the Government sought reconsideration — a disclosure that has stirred debate over judicial independence and the delicate balance between the judiciary and the executive.
The Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, had initially recommended the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court in August 2025. However, following a Government request, the body reversed its decision, proposing instead that Justice Sreedharan be moved to the Allahabad High Court.
This Collegium reversal, officially published on the Supreme Court’s website, explicitly states that the change was made after the Centre “sought reconsideration” — a rare acknowledgment that has drawn significant public and legal attention.
A Rare Admission of Executive Influence
Judicial transfers are routine administrative decisions handled through the Collegium system, yet it is exceedingly uncommon for the Collegium to publicly attribute a change in decision to a Government request.
Legal experts and court observers note that while the executive may seek clarification or delay implementation of Collegium recommendations, the judiciary seldom discloses such interactions. The Collegium’s admission in this instance, therefore, marks an unprecedented moment of institutional transparency — and possibly, vulnerability.
A senior advocate at the Supreme Court, speaking anonymously, remarked:
“This acknowledgment may strengthen transparency but simultaneously reveals the continuing push-and-pull between the executive and judiciary in judicial appointments.”
Background: The Judge and the Transfer Trail
Justice Atul Sreedharan, a well-regarded judge known for his clear reasoning and constitutional rigor, was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2016.
Earlier, he had voluntarily sought a transfer away from Madhya Pradesh in 2023 when his daughter began legal practice in Indore — to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Following that request, the Collegium transferred him to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, before bringing him back to Madhya Pradesh in 2025.
The August 2025 recommendation for his transfer to Chhattisgarh High Court would have elevated his seniority ranking to second in that court. However, under the latest Collegium reversal, his reassignment to the Allahabad High Court will place him much lower in seniority — around seventh, according to legal sources.
While the Collegium’s official resolution did not elaborate on the Government’s concerns, observers suggest the executive may have preferred the change due to “administrative balancing” or other undisclosed reasons.
Why This Collegium Reversal Matters
The Supreme Court Collegium — comprising the CJI and four senior-most judges — holds constitutional authority over judicial appointments and transfers under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.
Its legitimacy was reaffirmed in 2015 when the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was struck down as unconstitutional. Since then, the Collegium has operated independently, but often amid friction with the executive over transparency and accountability.
By acknowledging a Government request as the trigger for its judge transfer reconsideration, the Collegium has reopened debate on whether executive interference continues to influence judicial administration despite constitutional safeguards.
Prominent constitutional expert Faizan Mustafa commented:
“This incident illustrates the continuing tension between judicial primacy and executive participation in appointments. Even if legitimate, such influence must be publicly justified to preserve credibility.”
Transparency vs. Independence
While some view the Collegium’s open disclosure as a healthy act of transparency, others argue it signals an erosion of judicial autonomy.
Legal commentator Indira Jaising wrote on X (formerly Twitter):
“Acknowledging that a Government request led to a reversal raises concerns — not merely about influence, but about perception. The judiciary must appear independent, not just be independent.”
Historically, Collegium decisions are communicated through brief press releases that neither explain rationale nor reference government communication. The current statement’s candor — explicitly citing a “Government request” — thus stands out as an exceptional break from convention.
Critics worry that even a symbolic deference could embolden further executive assertions into judicial functioning. Supporters, however, argue that openness about the Collegium process may strengthen institutional accountability and build public trust.
Justice Sreedharan’s Judicial Record
Justice Sreedharan’s record reflects a consistent emphasis on constitutional rights and procedural fairness. During his tenure in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, he quashed several preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act, reinforcing due process standards.
In Madhya Pradesh, he was part of a bench that took suo motu cognisance of a minister’s communal remarks — directing state authorities to maintain constitutional propriety. His rulings have often attracted public attention for their clarity and independence.
For these reasons, the news of his transfer reconsideration has sparked conversations not just about procedure but about the possible implications for judges known for judicial activism.
Institutional Dynamics: The Judiciary–Executive Equation
The episode underscores long-standing friction between the Supreme Court Collegium and the Central Government over appointments and transfers. Delays, selective approvals, and return of files are recurring flashpoints.
Since 2017, several High Court recommendations have seen Government re-references or extended pendency — leading to judicial vacancies and administrative backlogs.
By publicly confirming that it acted upon a Government request, the Collegium may have sought to pre-empt speculation and maintain a record of procedural fairness. Yet, critics argue that such concessions could embolden future executive interventions in judicial administration.
Legal Community Reaction
The legal fraternity has responded with a mix of surprise and concern. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has called for “clarity and reaffirmation of judicial independence” in transfer policy.
Some senior advocates have urged that the Collegium publish detailed reasons for every judge transfer, echoing past calls for structural reform.
A retired High Court judge, speaking to legal portal LiveLaw, stated:
“Transparency without independence is hollow. If the Government can alter a transfer with a mere request, it undermines the perception of autonomy that sustains public confidence in the judiciary.”
Broader Implications
The incident arrives amid heightened discussion on reforming the Collegium system. Critics of the current structure advocate for a more participatory yet transparent framework, while defenders insist the Collegium remains essential for preserving judicial independence.
Either way, the Collegium reversal in Justice Atul Sreedharan’s case is likely to serve as a reference point in ongoing debates about checks and balances within India’s constitutional system.
Excerpt (for snippet use):
The Supreme Court Collegium has admitted altering its judge transfer decision for Justice Atul Sreedharan after a Government request, marking a rare moment of transparency — and concern — over judicial independence in India.
Source:
