Non-Justiciability of High Court Judge Transfers and Oath Administration under Articles 124(4), 217(1)(b) & 222 of the Constitution

Introduction

This commentary examines the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Vikash Chaturvedi v. Union of Bharat & Another (2025 AHC-LKO 23110), delivered on April 23, 2025. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a practitioner of the High Court, seeking:

• A writ of prohibition to restrain the Chief Justice of the Uttar Pradesh High Court from administering the oath to Judge Yashwant Varma;
• A writ of certiorari to quash the Centre’s notification of March 28, 2025 transferring Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Uttar Pradesh High Court;
• Any further relief deemed fit in the interests of justice.

Key issues included whether the transfer notification under Article 222 of the Constitution was procedurally flawed, and whether the administration of the oath and transfer of a High Court Judge are justiciable once proper constitutional procedure is followed. The petitioners challenged the independence and tenure protection of the judiciary; the respondents argued that the transfer process lay entirely within constitutional and parliamentary mechanisms and was beyond judicial review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench, per Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi, held:

1. The transfer notification dated March 28, 2025, was issued by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, under Article 222, and no procedural irregularity was demonstrated.
2. Once the Constitution’s prescribed procedure is followed, decisions on tenure, transfer, and oath administration of High Court Judges are non-justiciable.
3. The petition impermissibly sought to challenge the protected tenure under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b), intruding into matters reserved for parliamentary privilege and executive discretion.
4. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the reported text does not name specific case law, the court’s reasoning rests on established principles:

• Supreme Court precedents on judicial independence:
  • Judges’ tenure and transfer decisions are shielded from judicial interference once constitutional procedure is complied with.
• Parliamentary privilege:
  • The exclusive domain of Parliament to discuss judges’ appointments and tenure (Article 124(4)).

These precedents affirm that the judiciary will not review or second-guess executive or legislative decisions taken according to the constitutional scheme to preserve the separation of powers and judicial independence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be broken into three core pillars:

1. Constitutional Scheme and Articles
   • Article 222: Empowers the President, after consulting the Chief Justice of India, to transfer a High Court Judge.
   • Article 124(4) & 217(1)(b): Guarantee security of tenure against removal or change without prescribed parliamentary processes.
2. Procedural Compliance
   • No irregularity was shown in the consultation process with the Chief Justice of India or in the issuance of the notification.
   • The transfer met all constitutional formalities, rendering the notification valid “in the eye of law.”
3. Non-Justiciability Doctrine
   • Once procedural compliance is established, the courts have no jurisdiction to question transfers, oath administration, or other tenure-related incidents.
   • This doctrine preserves separation of powers and protects judicial independence by preventing endless litigation on administrative decisions within the judiciary.

Impact

The judgment reinforces key legal principles:

• Judicial Independence Strengthened: Courts will uphold internal administrative decisions of the judiciary, once constitutional process is followed.
• Reduction in Frivolous Challenges: Litigants cannot weaponize writ jurisdiction to stall or challenge judge transfers or oath ceremonies.
• Clarity on Non-Justiciability: Future petitioners must show procedural infirmity rather than substantive disagreement with policy decisions on judge postings.
• Parliamentary Primacy: Emphasizes exclusive domain of Parliament and executive consultation with the Chief Justice of India in matters of tenure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 222 Consultation: The President must consult the Chief Justice of India before transferring any High Court Judge, but the Chief Justice is not a veto holder—consultation means seeking views.
• Non-Justiciability: A legal doctrine preventing courts from deciding certain subjects—here, internal judicial administrative matters—once constitutional steps are followed.
• Security of Tenure: Judges cannot be removed or have their terms altered except through constitutionally prescribed processes, safeguarding them from external pressures.
• Writ of Prohibition vs. Certiorari: Prohibition halts an act before it occurs; certiorari quashes a decision already made. Both were invoked but denied for lack of justiciable grievance.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Vikash Chaturvedi v. Union of Bharat cements the principle that transfers and oath-taking of High Court Judges, when conducted under Articles 222, 124(4), and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution, are not open to judicial review. By underscoring parliamentary and executive domains in judicial administration, the judgment safeguards the independence of the judiciary and channels future challenges toward demonstrating procedural illegality rather than policy differences. This ruling will guide litigants, lower courts, and High Court administrations in handling disputes over judge postings and related administrative actions.