Karnataka Bar Council Urges Supreme Court Collegium to Reconsider Transfer of Four High Court Judges

The Karnataka State Bar Council has formally expressed its concerns regarding the recent transfer of four judges from the Karnataka High Court to other High Courts. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India, the Union Law Minister, and the Prime Minister, the Bar Council has urged the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider these transfers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balanced and regionally representative judiciary.

The four judges in question are Justice Narendar G, Justice Muralidhar, Justice Ranjit More, and Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath. Justice Narendar G, who was serving as a judge in the Karnataka High Court, has been recommended for transfer to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Similarly, Justice Muralidhar, a senior judge from the Delhi High Court, has been recommended for transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Ranjit More from the Bombay High Court is proposed to be transferred to the Meghalaya High Court, and Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath from the Karnataka High Court is recommended for transfer to the Uttarakhand High Court.

The Karnataka Bar Council's letter highlights several concerns regarding these transfers. Firstly, the Council points out that the Karnataka High Court is already functioning with a reduced number of judges, with a sanctioned strength of 62 judges but currently operating with only 45. The transfer of four judges further exacerbates this shortage, potentially leading to delays and backlogs in the delivery of justice.

Secondly, the Bar Council emphasizes the importance of local knowledge and experience in the judiciary. Judges who have served in a particular High Court develop a deep understanding of the local laws, customs, and issues pertinent to that region. The transfer of judges from Karnataka to other states may result in a loss of this valuable local expertise, which is crucial for the effective administration of justice.

Furthermore, the Council expresses concern about the lack of consultation with the Karnataka Bar Association and other stakeholders before making these transfer recommendations. The Bar Council believes that such consultations are essential to ensure that the interests of the local legal community are considered and that the judiciary remains responsive to the needs of the public it serves.

In light of these concerns, the Karnataka Bar Council has requested the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider the proposed transfers and to engage in a more consultative process when making decisions that impact the composition and functioning of the High Courts. The Council advocates for a balanced approach that takes into account both the need for judicial efficiency and the importance of maintaining regional representation within the judiciary.

The issue of judicial transfers has been a topic of debate in India, with critics arguing that such transfers can disrupt the functioning of High Courts and affect the morale of judges. Proponents, however, contend that transfers are necessary to ensure the impartiality and independence of the judiciary by preventing judges from becoming too entrenched in a particular jurisdiction.

The Karnataka Bar Council's intervention underscores the need for a transparent and consultative approach to judicial appointments and transfers. By highlighting the potential adverse effects of the proposed transfers, the Council calls for a reassessment of the Collegium's recommendations to ensure that the judiciary remains effective, impartial, and attuned to the needs of the communities it serves.

In conclusion, the Karnataka Bar Council's appeal to the Supreme Court Collegium reflects a broader concern about the balance between judicial efficiency and regional representation within the Indian judiciary. As the Collegium considers the Bar Council's request, it faces the challenge of ensuring that judicial transfers serve the broader interests of justice without undermining the local expertise and stability that are vital for the effective functioning of High Courts.