{"id":45581,"date":"2025-03-30T08:21:46","date_gmt":"2025-03-30T02:51:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=45581"},"modified":"2025-05-06T21:36:57","modified_gmt":"2025-05-06T16:06:57","slug":"high-court-judges-repatriation-njac-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/high-court-judges-repatriation-njac-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"High Court Judges\u2019 Repatriation &#038; NJAC Verdict | Judicial Transfers Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>What\u2019s in Today\u2019s Article?<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Judicial transfers Latest News<\/li>\n<li>Transfer of High Court Judges: Constitutional Framework and Judicial Interpretation<\/li>\n<li>Criticisms of Judicial Transfers in India<\/li>\n<li>Striking Down of the NJAC: Reasons and Judicial Verdict<\/li>\n<li>Judicial transfers FAQ\u2019s<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Judicial transfers Latest News<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The Union government has notified the repatriation of Justice Yashwant Varma to the Allahabad High Court, following the Supreme Court Collegium\u2019s recommendation.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>His transfer comes amid allegations of charred currency notes being recovered from his residence after a fire, prompting Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya to seek an in-house inquiry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Transfer of High Court Judges: Constitutional Framework and Judicial Interpretation<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Article 222(1) of the Constitution<\/strong> empowers the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), to transfer a judge from one High Court to another.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Judicial Evolution of Transfer Process<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>First Judges Case (1981):<\/strong> The Supreme Court held that the President&#8217;s consultation with the CJI did not require concurrence, affirming the executive\u2019s primacy in judicial transfers.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Second Judges Case (1993):<\/strong> Overturned the earlier ruling, institutionalizing the collegium system and granting the CJI primacy in transfer decisions. The Court emphasized that transfers must serve the public interest and enhance judicial administration.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Third Judges Case (1998):<\/strong> Further refined the collegium system, mandating consultation with the four seniormost judges and seeking inputs from Supreme Court judges familiar with the concerned High Court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Process of Transfer<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The collegium recommends the transfer.<\/li>\n<li>The Law Minister reviews and advises the Prime Minister.<\/li>\n<li>The Prime Minister forwards the recommendation to the President.<\/li>\n<li>Upon presidential approval, the transfer is formalized through a gazette notification.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Key Considerations<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The CJI must consult relevant judges and legal experts to prevent arbitrariness.<\/li>\n<li>A judge\u2019s consent is not required for transfer.<\/li>\n<li>Judicial review of transfer decisions is limited to prevent external interference.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Criticisms of Judicial Transfers in India<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Concerns Over Judicial Independence<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has raised concerns about increasing executive interference in judicial appointments and transfers, undermining judicial independence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Lack of Transparency and Accountability<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Judicial transfers, often carried out without the affected judge\u2019s consent, are justified on vague grounds like \u201cpublic interest\u201d and \u201cbetter administration of justice.\u201d\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>This ambiguity makes it difficult to differentiate between legitimate and punitive transfers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Recommendations for Reform<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The ICJ has suggested the establishment of a Judicial Council to oversee appointments and transfers based on transparent, objective, and predetermined criteria.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>It recommends that the council be composed mainly of judges, aligning with international standards of judicial independence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Striking Down of the NJAC: Reasons and Judicial Verdict<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>In 2014, the then government introduced the <strong>99th Constitutional Amendment<\/strong> and the <strong>NJAC Act<\/strong> to replace the opaque collegium system for judicial appointments.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The NJAC was designed as an independent body to appoint Supreme Court and High Court judges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Composition of the NJAC<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The NJAC was to be chaired by the <strong>CJI<\/strong> and included:\n<ul>\n<li>Two senior-most Supreme Court judges<\/li>\n<li>Union Law Minister<\/li>\n<li>Two eminent civil society members (one from SC\/ST\/OBC or a woman)<\/li>\n<li>These members were nominated by a panel consisting of the <strong>CJI, Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Political and Legal Challenges<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The amendment passed almost unanimously in Parliament and was ratified by 16 State legislatures.<\/li>\n<li>However, it was challenged in the Supreme Court, with critics arguing that the <strong>veto power<\/strong> granted to any two NJAC members\u2014potentially including the Law Minister\u2014could undermine judicial independence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Supreme Court Verdict (2015)<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>In October 2015, a five-judge Bench ruled (4:1) that the NJAC was <strong>unconstitutional<\/strong>, stating that it violated the <strong>basic structure of the Constitution<\/strong>, particularly judicial independence.<\/li>\n<li>The majority held that the <strong>Law Minister and non-judicial members could interfere<\/strong> with judicial appointments, compromising autonomy.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Dissenting opinion by Justice Jasti Chelameswar<\/strong>: He criticized the collegium\u2019s lack of transparency, arguing that NJAC could have prevented <strong>&#8220;<\/strong>unwholesome trade-offs&#8221; and &#8220;incestuous accommodations&#8221; between the judiciary and executive.<\/li>\n<li>The verdict restored the <strong>collegium system<\/strong>, reinforcing the judiciary\u2019s primacy in appointments but leaving concerns over transparency unresolved.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Judicial Transfers FAQs<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What is the process for transferring High Court judges?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The collegium recommends transfers, reviewed by the Law Minister, PM, and President before final approval.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> Why was the NJAC struck down?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Supreme Court ruled that NJAC violated judicial independence by allowing executive interference in appointments.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> What are the criticisms of judicial transfers?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Lack of transparency, arbitrary decisions, and potential executive interference undermine judicial independence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What role does the collegium system play?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India, selects and transfers judges without government intervention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What reforms have been proposed for judicial transfers?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Experts suggest a Judicial Council to ensure transparent, merit-based appointments and transfers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/justice-yashwant-varma-case-how-high-court-judges-are-repatriated-and-why-the-njac-was-struck-down\/article69377880.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.constitutionofindia.net\/articles\/article-222-transfer-of-a-judge-from-one-high-court-to-another\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">CoI<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Justice Yashwant Varma\u2019s repatriation raises questions about judicial transfers. Learn why NJAC was struck down and its impact on judicial independence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":45582,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-45581","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45581\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/45582"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}