Total Count

Subscribe Us

What is Article 222 of indian constitution

 

📜 Article 222 of the Indian Constitution

Title: Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another

🔹 Text Summary:

Article 222 empowers the President of India to transfer a judge (including the Chief Justice) from one High Court to another, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

📌 Key Provisions of Article 222:

Clause Provision
(1) The President may transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
(2) A transferred judge is entitled to a compensatory allowance, determined by Parliament by law, in addition to their regular salary, for the inconvenience caused by the transfer.

🧠 Key Takeaways:

🔑 Aspect ✅ Explanation
Who can transfer a judge? The President of India
On whose advice? Chief Justice of India (CJI) (consultation is mandatory)
Whom can it affect? Any Judge or Chief Justice of a High Court
Why is it used? Administrative efficiency, public interest, or to maintain judicial independence
Compensation A compensatory allowance is provided after transfer

🏛️ Example:

  • If a judge is serving in the Patna High Court and is transferred to the Madras High Court, the President can do so only after consulting the CJI, and the judge will receive a compensatory allowance.

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation:

  • In S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court initially held that the CJI’s opinion is not binding.

  • But in the Second Judges Case (1993), it was clarified that the CJI’s opinion must be formed with consultation of other senior SC judges, and is effectively binding on the President.

⚠️ Controversies:

  • Sometimes, transfers are seen as punitive or politically motivated.

  • Judges have protested non-transparent transfers, demanding better consultation and transparency.

⚖️ Related Articles:

Article Subject
222 Transfer of High Court judges
217 Appointment and conditions of HC judges
124 Appointment of Supreme Court judges
224 Appointment of additional and acting judges

Here is a 🕰️ timeline of major judicial transfer cases in India, focusing on the constitutional evolution and controversies related to Article 222 (transfer of High Court judges):

🏛️ Timeline of Major Judge Transfer Cases in India

📌 1. 1976 – Justice Sankalchand H. Sheth Case

  • Case: Union of India v. Sankalchand H. Sheth

  • Context: Justice Sheth of Gujarat High Court was transferred without consent.

  • Judgment: Supreme Court upheld the validity of transfer without consent, but said the President must act on CJI’s effective consultation.

  • 🧠 Key point: Consent is not mandatory, but transfer must be in public interest.

📌 2. 1981 – S.P. Gupta Case (First Judges Case)

  • Also known as: Judges Transfer Case

  • Issue: Challenged large-scale transfers of High Court judges during the Emergency.

  • Verdict:

    • CJI's opinion not binding on the President.

    • Gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments and transfers.

  • 🧠 Effect: Weakened judiciary’s control over appointments.

📌 3. 1993 – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Case (Second Judges Case)

  • Outcome: Overruled S.P. Gupta case.

  • Verdict:

    • CJI’s opinion is binding.

    • CJI must consult a collegium of 2 senior-most judges.

  • 🧠 Effect: Established the Collegium System for appointments and transfers.

📌 4. 1998 – Presidential Reference (Third Judges Case)

  • President asked: How should the CJI consult judges?

  • Supreme Court opinion:

    • CJI must consult a collegium of 4 senior-most judges.

    • Majority view prevails in case of disagreement.

  • 🧠 Effect: Strengthened the Collegium mechanism.

📌 5. 2014 – NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment

  • Parliament tried to replace Collegium with National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

  • Purpose: To bring transparency and executive role in judicial appointments and transfers.

📌 6. 2015 – NJAC Verdict (Fourth Judges Case)

  • Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional.

  • Reaffirmed judicial primacy in transfers and appointments.

  • 🧠 Effect: Collegium system revived with suggestions for more transparency.

📌 7. 2020–2024 – Recent Controversies

  • Multiple judges (e.g. Justice S. Muralidhar, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Justice Rajiv Shakdher) were transferred or recommended for transfer, leading to public debates.

  • Allegations of:

    • Lack of transparency

    • Punitive transfers

    • Ignoring judicial independence

📌 Summary of Legal Evolution:

Case/Year Key Outcome
Sheth Case (1976) Consent not mandatory, CJI must be consulted
S.P. Gupta (1981) Executive primacy
SCORA (1993) Judicial primacy, Collegium begins
Presidential Ref. (1998) Expanded collegium to 5 judges
NJAC Verdict (2015) NJAC struck down, Collegium restored


You may like these posts