The Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) has called on the Supreme Court Collegium to revisit its recommendation for transferring four judges from the Karnataka High Court, raising concerns about the impact of such decisions on judicial independence and institutional stability.
In a formal letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the KSBC emphasized that the abrupt transfers of experienced judges have sparked a broader debate about transparency and fairness in judicial appointments. The Council argued that these sudden shifts could undermine the morale of the judiciary and erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole.
Expressing the collective voice of the legal community in Karnataka, the Council appealed to the Collegium to reconsider the decision. “We respectfully request that the Hon’ble Collegium withdraw its order concerning the transfer of these distinguished judges,” the letter stated, highlighting the negative repercussions such actions could have on the legal profession and public confidence in the judiciary.
The Council also raised practical concerns, pointing out that removing multiple seasoned judges could disrupt the Karnataka High Court’s efficiency, which is already one of the busiest courts in India. It warned that this sudden reshuffling could delay justice and exacerbate the backlog of pending cases, a growing issue in the judicial system. “Transfers should be gradual, well-reasoned, and grounded in transparency, rather than being driven by arbitrary decisions,” the letter read.
The four judges—Justices Krishna S. Dixit, K. Natarajan, Sanjay Gowda, and Hemant Chandangoudar—were recommended for transfer by the Collegium on April 21. Justice Dixit was proposed for the Orissa High Court, Justice Natarajan for the Kerala High Court, Justice Chandangoudar for the Madras High Court, and Justice Gowda for the Gujarat High Court. The Collegium’s official statement cited the intention to promote diversity and inclusivity in the higher judiciary, enhancing the quality of justice administration.
However, this recommendation has provoked significant backlash from the Karnataka legal community. On April 23, the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, boycotted court proceedings in protest against the transfer order, underscoring the growing unease within the legal fraternity.
As the debate continues, the Karnataka Bar Council’s appeal adds a powerful voice to the ongoing discussion about the balance between judicial mobility and the preservation of judicial independence.
