Part VI: The States
Chapter V - The High Courts in the States
Article 222: Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another
Original Article:
(222) The President may, on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A, transfer a Judge from one High Court to any other High Court as deemed fit.
Amendments:
1 Amended by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 (w.e.f. 13-4-2015), struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Explanation:
Article 222 outlines the provisions for transferring judges between High Courts to ensure judicial efficiency and impartiality. This includes compensatory allowances and adherence to constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial independence.
Clause Headings:
1. Presidential Authority for Transfer
The President, after consultation with relevant authorities, can transfer High Court judges to address judicial needs across different regions.
2. Compensatory Allowance
Judges transferred under this article receive additional allowances to offset the financial and logistical challenges associated with relocation.
Historical Significance:
The provision reflects the judiciary’s adaptability and the constitutional framework’s emphasis on balancing judicial resources and regional representation.
Real-Life Examples:
The transfer of Justice K.S. Hegde from Kerala to Delhi exemplifies the application of Article 222 to address judicial requirements in diverse contexts.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
The transfer is based on judicial necessity, impartiality concerns, and the efficient distribution of judicial resources.
The Chief Justice’s consultation is critical to ensuring that transfers are impartial and address judicial requirements effectively.
Yes, compensatory allowances are provided to address the challenges associated with relocation until specific laws are enacted by Parliament.
Debates and Deliberations:
During the Constituent Assembly debates, the need for judicial transfers was highlighted to balance regional demands and judicial expertise. Members debated the extent of presidential power and the importance of Chief Justice consultation to safeguard judicial independence.