Ahmedabad: A storm has erupted in Gujarat’s legal circles after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the transfer of 14 High Court judges, including Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt and Justice C.M. Roy from the Gujarat High Court. The move has triggered strong opposition from the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA), which has announced an indefinite strike to protest against the decision.
According to sources, Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt has been proposed to be transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while Justice C.M. Roy is being moved to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Collegium’s recommendations, though not yet officially released, are expected to be sent to the Central Government for confirmation within the next two days after completion of pending formalities.
The GHCAA reacted sharply to the proposal, calling the transfer “unjustified and disruptive.” A committee has been formed within the association to make a formal representation to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), urging reconsideration of Justice Bhatt’s transfer.
Speaking on behalf of the association, a senior lawyer said, “Justice Sandeep Bhatt is known for his integrity and impartial judgments. Arbitrary transfers without transparent reasoning undermine the morale of both the judiciary and the bar. We demand that the Collegium reconsider its decision.”
.jpg)
The strike, which has already halted court proceedings, is expected to intensify if the Supreme Court Collegium proceeds with the transfer despite the protest. Advocates warned that such decisions, taken without consultation with the stakeholders, could set a dangerous precedent.
Legal experts note that the transfer of judges by the Supreme Court Collegium has long been a contentious issue, with critics often questioning the lack of transparency behind the decisions. However, supporters argue that transfers are necessary to maintain judicial discipline and prevent undue local influences.
For now, the Gujarat High Court remains at a standstill, with advocates united in their opposition. The ball is now in the Collegium’s court, as the legal fraternity awaits clarity on whether the representation to the CJI will alter the course of the proposed transfers.
As one advocate bluntly put it, “This is not just about one judge. This is about the independence of the judiciary and the right of the bar to stand against opaque decisions.”
