Centre Notifies Transfer of 11 High Court Judges Amid Bar Protests

NEW DELHI – The Central Government on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, issued formal notifications sanctioning the transfer of 11 judges across various High Courts in India. The move, which operationalizes the August recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium, has been marked by significant protests from Bar Associations in Delhi and Gujarat, raising questions about the rationale behind some of the proposed shifts.

The transfers, executed under the authority of Article 222 of the Constitution, affect judges from the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi, Kerala, Gujarat, Allahabad, Calcutta, and Madras. While judicial transfers are a routine aspect of judicial administration, this recent reshuffle has drawn particular scrutiny due to the vocal opposition from sections of the legal fraternity concerning specific judges.

According to the notifications issued by the Department of Justice, the President of India, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, has approved the transfers. The notifications state, “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer...” This standard constitutional phrasing underscores the procedural completion of a process that began with the Collegium's deliberations two months prior.

Key Judicial Movements and Controversies

The transfers have resulted in a significant shuffle, with some High Courts seeing multiple judges move in and out. The Delhi High Court is a focal point of this reshuffle, receiving three new judges while two of its own have been transferred out.

Notable Transfers Include:

• To Delhi High Court: Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Dinesh Mehta (from Rajasthan High Court), and Justice C Sudha (from Kerala High Court).
• From Delhi High Court: Justice Arun Monga (to Rajasthan High Court) and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju (to Karnataka High Court).
• To Andhra Pradesh High Court: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy (from Gujarat High Court), Justice Donadi Ramesh (from Allahabad High Court), and Justice Subhendu Samanta (from Calcutta High Court).
• From Gujarat High Court: Justice Sandeep N Bhatt (to Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Justice C.M. Roy (to Andhra Pradesh High Court).
• Other Transfers: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh (from Allahabad High Court to Patna High Court) and Justice J Nisha Banu (from Madras High Court to Kerala High Court).

The transfers of Delhi High Court's Justice Arun Monga and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have been particularly contentious. Following the Collegium's recommendation in August, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa and a group of women lawyers from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) wrote separate letters to CJI B.R. Gavai. The lawyers expressed deep concern and protested the "sudden transfer" of Justice Ganju, who was appointed to the bench on May 18, 2022. The swiftness of the transfers, especially that of Justice Monga, who was elevated to the Delhi High Court only on July 21, 2025, has also raised eyebrows within the legal community.

Similarly, the transfer of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt from the Gujarat High Court to the Madhya Pradesh High Court sparked an indefinite boycott of court proceedings by the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) in August. The association, in a meeting attended by over 500 lawyers, urged the CJI to reconsider the proposal. The GHCAA highlighted Justice Bhatt's significant contributions to judicial transparency, stating:

"...Justice Bhatt, known for his efforts to enhance transparency in the judiciary, had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras across court registries and scrutinised registry operations. His strict measures were widely regarded as essential for improving accountability and streamlining administrative processes in the high court."

Despite these robust protests and appeals for reconsideration, the Central Government's notification indicates that the Collegium's recommendations for these judges have been upheld.

Analysis of Specific Transfers

The transfer of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy from Gujarat back to his parent High Court in Andhra Pradesh is a notable "repatriation." He was first appointed as a permanent judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 12, 2019, before being transferred to Gujarat in November 2023. His return to his home court is a significant development for the Andhra Pradesh judiciary. He is now joined by Justice Donadi Ramesh from Allahabad and Justice Subhendu Samanta from Calcutta, bolstering the bench strength of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Another key transfer is that of Justice J Nisha Banu from the Madras High Court to the Kerala High Court. As the senior-most woman judge of the Madras High Court, her move is a significant change in the court's composition.

The Constitutional Mandate and Collegium's Role

The transfer of High Court judges is governed by Article 222(1) of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the President to transfer a judge from one High Court to any other, but only after "consultation with the Chief Justice of India." Over the years, through judicial precedent, this "consultation" has evolved into a binding recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium, which typically includes the CJI and the four next senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

While the stated purpose of transfers is for the "better administration of justice," the lack of publicly stated reasons for individual transfers often fuels speculation and controversy. The protests from the Bar are a clear indication of the legal community's desire for greater transparency in the Collegium's decision-making process. The transfers of judges who are perceived as being upright, efficient, or instrumental in administrative reforms, such as Justice Bhatt, often lead to suspicions that such moves are punitive, although no evidence has been presented to substantiate such claims in this instance.

The government’s notification of 11 out of the 14 transfers recommended by the Collegium suggests that decisions on the remaining three are still pending or have been deferred. This selective notification is also a point of observation for court-watchers.

For the legal community, this extensive judicial reshuffle will mean adapting to new benches, judicial philosophies, and case management styles in at least eleven High Courts. As the newly transferred judges assume their charges, the impact of these changes on case disposal rates and judicial administration will be closely monitored across the country.