Executive Repeatedly Pushed For Justice Muralidhar’s Transfer Over A Judgment: Justice Madan Lokur Reveals

In a disclosure that reverberates through the core tenets of judicial independence in India, former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur has revealed that the Union Government persistently pressed the Supreme Court Collegium to transfer Justice S. Muralidhar from the Delhi High Court. The alleged reason for this sustained pressure was a specific judgment delivered by Justice Muralidhar, a move that Justice Lokur deemed an entirely unacceptable ground for transfer.

The revelation, detailed in Justice Lokur's essay in the recently published book “[In]Complete Justice? Supreme Court at 75” , sheds unprecedented light on the inner workings of the Collegium and the potential for executive influence over judicial appointments and transfers. According to Justice Lokur, the government’s push was thwarted for years only by the principled opposition of individual Collegium members, and the transfer ultimately materialized after their retirement.

A Tale of Sustained Pressure and Principled Resistance

Justice Lokur recounts that the initial demand for Justice Muralidhar’s transfer was made during his own tenure as a member of the Supreme Court Collegium. He provides a candid account of his impression that the executive was attempting to interfere with judicial postings based on the content of a judge's ruling.

"On one occasion, I got the distinct impression that the CJI was advised by the Executive to effect a transfer - that of Muralidhar J out of Delhi HC for a judgment he had delivered," Justice Lokur writes. "In my view, that certainly cannot be a ground for transfer; and so, I expressed my disagreement with the proposal, and the CJI readily accepted my view."

This opposition successfully stalled the government's alleged request. However, the matter did not end there. Justice Lokur reveals that the proposal resurfaced after his retirement in December 2018. At this point, Justice A.K. Sikri, the new entrant to the Collegium, reportedly took up the mantle of opposition, holding the same view as Justice Lokur and blocking the transfer.

The stalemate broke following Justice Sikri's retirement in March 2019. With two key dissenting voices no longer part of the decision-making body, the path was cleared. In February 2020, Justice Muralidhar was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Lokur describes this eventual transfer as "arbitrary," suggesting it lacked a sound, transparent basis.

The Controversial Context of the 2020 Transfer

Justice Muralidhar’s transfer in February 2020 was not a quiet administrative affair. It ignited a significant controversy at the time due to its dramatic timing. The official notification for his transfer was issued by the government late at night, mere hours after a bench headed by him had passed a series of critical orders concerning the 2020 Delhi riots.

In a midnight hearing, Justice Muralidhar’s bench had sharply rebuked the Delhi Police for its inaction and failure to register First Information Reports (FIRs) against political leaders accused of delivering inflammatory speeches that allegedly incited violence. The bench had played video clips of the speeches in open court and directed the police to make a "conscious decision" on the registration of FIRs.

The juxtaposition of these bold judicial orders—upholding accountability and the rule of law during a period of intense communal strife—with his immediate transfer notice led to widespread condemnation from the legal community and civil society. Many viewed the transfer as a punitive measure, an interpretation that now finds powerful support in Justice Lokur’s account. The narrative is further bolstered by recent comments from another former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Abhay S. Oka, who expressed that Justice Muralidhar may have faced consequences for his firm handling of the Delhi riots cases.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Justice Lokur's disclosures raise profound questions about the sanctity of judicial independence, a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy. The principle of separation of powers mandates that the judiciary must function without fear or favour, insulated from executive pressure. A transfer initiated as a direct consequence of a judicial pronouncement represents a direct assault on this fundamental principle.

1. The Collegium System Under Scrutiny: The episode exposes the vulnerabilities of the Collegium system. While designed to protect judicial autonomy from executive overreach in appointments, its opaque functioning can also make it susceptible to external influence and internal shifts in opinion. The fact that the transfer was stalled only by the presence of specific individuals highlights a system reliant on personal conviction rather than institutional safeguards. This has reignited the debate on the need for greater transparency and structured, criteria-based decision-making for judicial transfers.

2. Legitimate Grounds for Transfer: A transfer of a High Court judge is meant to be an administrative exigency, typically in the "public interest" or for the "better administration of justice." It is not intended to be a punitive tool. Justice Lokur’s assertion that a judgment "certainly cannot be a ground for transfer" underscores a critical red line. If judges can be transferred for delivering verdicts that are inconvenient to the executive, it creates a chilling effect that could deter judges from making courageous and impartial decisions.

3. Judicial Accountability vs. Independence: While judicial accountability is important, it must be enforced through established legal channels like appeals and judicial review, not through administrative actions like transfers. Using transfer as a tool for "correcting" a judge undermines the entire appellate structure and signals that judicial integrity can be compromised through executive displeasure.

The Way Forward: A Call for Transparency

The revelations by a senior and respected former judge like Justice Lokur cannot be dismissed lightly. They provide a rare insider's perspective into the high-stakes negotiations that shape the judiciary's composition and, by extension, its character. For the legal profession, this account is a stark reminder of the continuous struggle to maintain a firewall between the judiciary and the executive.

This incident will likely fuel calls for systemic reforms, including the potential reconsideration of a transparent and independent appointments commission or, at the very least, a more accountable and open Collegium process. The principle at stake is not merely the career trajectory of one judge but the very ability of the Indian judiciary to act as an impartial arbiter and a guardian of the Constitution against executive encroachment.