In a recent development that has sparked discussions across the legal fraternity, Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana, currently serving at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, publicly accused the Supreme Court Collegium of harassment through his transfer from the Andhra Pradesh High Court to MP in 2023. The controversy has highlighted the ongoing sensitive issue of judicial transfers in India, the transparency of the Collegium system, and the human element behind administrative decisions impacting judges.
Background: The Transfer and Justice Ramana’s Plea
Justice Ramana, appointed as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2022 after a long tenure as a judicial officer since 2007, revealed in his farewell speech that he had specifically requested a transfer to the Karnataka High Court to facilitate medical care for his wife suffering from a severe neurological condition. This request was rejected by the Collegium comprising then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Instead, Justice Ramana was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which he perceived as a move aimed at causing him hardship. His representations highlighting his wife's medical condition went unaddressed, causing him deep disappointment.
"My transfer order seems to have been issued with ill intention and to harass me. I was transferred from my home state for obvious reasons. I am happy to satisfy their ego... God does not forgive, nor forgets," Justice Ramana lamented.
You can also read the Judgement of Civil Law Vs Common Law: Key Differences and Implications
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Judicial Transfers: Legal and Human Concerns
The transfer of judges in India is governed by conventions and recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium, intended to preserve judicial independence and maintain administrative efficiency. However, Justice Ramana’s case brings into sharp focus the personal costs borne by judges and their families, and the need for compassionate consideration in transfer decisions.
Judicial transfer controversies are not new. The power to transfer judges, particularly those from High Courts, was recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark Second Judges Case (1993), but concerns remain over transparency and possible arbitrariness in the Collegium's decisions.
Bar and Bench Reaction
Justice Ramana acknowledged the support and camaraderie he received from the Bar and Bench in Madhya Pradesh, underscoring the goodwill he fostered despite the challenges.
The legal community, including publications such as Bar and Bench, have extensively covered this controversy, reflecting wider apprehensions about how transfers can affect judicial independence and morale.
Conclusion: A Call for Greater Transparency and Compassion
Justice D.V. Ramana’s candid farewell has reignited the debate on the transfer of judges in India and the need for a more transparent and humane approach by the Collegium. As the judiciary continues to strive for fairness, it must also ensure that the process respects the dignity and personal circumstances of its members.
This farewell serves as a crucial reminder: beyond the constitutional machinery and legal formalities lie real lives affected by administrative decisions. It is imperative that future transfers consider both the rule of law and the human element, fostering trust within the judiciary and the public.
