What happens when a judge is transferred but does not join?
Who ensures accountability when conventions are delayed?
And more importantly, what does this say about the way our judiciary functions today?
The recent developments involving Justice J. Nisha Banu have brought these questions into sharp focus, unsettling many within the legal community.
The Incident in Brief
Justice J. Nisha Banu, a sitting judge of the Madras High Court, was transferred to the Kerala High Court following a recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium. The transfer was formally notified by the Central Government in October 2025, making it constitutionally effective.
Yet, despite the notification, Justice Banu did not assume charge at the Kerala High Court for nearly two months. During this period, she neither took up her new posting nor continued her judicial work at the Madras High Court. Reports suggest she sought leave due to personal reasons, including her son’s wedding, and also made a representation seeking reconsideration of the transfer.
The delay did not go unnoticed. Members of the Bar raised objections, letters were written to constitutional authorities, and the issue was eventually brought to the attention of Parliament. Ultimately, the President of India intervened, directing Justice Nisha Banu to assume charge by 20 December 2025, following which her oath at the Kerala High Court was scheduled for 19 December 2025.
No misconduct was alleged. No inquiry was initiated. Yet, the episode left behind serious institutional questions.
How the Judiciary Is Supposed to Work
Under the Constitution, judicial transfers are not optional suggestions. Once the Supreme Court Collegium recommends a transfer and the executive notifies it, the process is complete. A judge is expected to comply and assume charge within a reasonable time.
This system rests on three unwritten but essential principles:
-
Institutional Discipline
Judges, as constitutional functionaries, are expected to adhere to decisions taken collectively in the interest of the judiciary. -
Continuity of Justice
Courts function for litigants, not individuals. Delays in assumption of office disrupt benches, hearings, and access to justice. -
Public Confidence
The judiciary derives legitimacy from perception as much as principle. When rules appear flexible for those at the top, credibility suffers.
Transfers are also meant to reinforce judicial independence, prevent local influence, and maintain neutrality. They are part of a system designed to protect judges — but also to regulate them.
How the Judiciary Is Actually Working
The Justice Nisha Banu episode exposes a gap between constitutional theory and institutional reality.
In practice:
-
There is no fixed statutory timeline for assuming charge after a transfer.
-
There is no transparent mechanism to address delays.
-
There is no immediate consequence for non-compliance
What followed instead was escalation — from bar objections, to parliamentary questions, to eventual presidential intervention. This itself raises a troubling question:
Why should the highest constitutional authority have to step in to enforce what is already a settled process?
When a transfer can be delayed for months without clarity, it suggests that informal negotiations and personal representations may sometimes override institutional urgency. While judges are entitled to dignity and personal consideration, prolonged ambiguity undermines the very discipline the judiciary expects from others.
🔍 Why This Episode Matters Beyond One Judge
This is not about targeting Justice Nisha Banu as an individual. It is about what her case symbolises.
If a junior officer delays joining, disciplinary action follows.
If a bureaucrat resists transfer, consequences are swift.
But when a judge delays compliance, the system appears hesitant, reactive, and opaque.
That asymmetry matters.
In an era where the judiciary frequently speaks about constitutional morality, institutional propriety, and the rule of law, its internal functioning must reflect those values. Otherwise, criticism of executive overreach or administrative arbitrariness begins to sound hollow.
⚖️ A Moment for Introspection
The resolution of the issue through presidential direction may have closed the chapter procedurally, but it leaves behind an important lesson.
The judiciary does not only adjudicate the law — it embodies it.
Its strength lies not just in landmark judgments, but in everyday adherence to process.
The Justice Nisha Banu episode should prompt a broader conversation on:
-
Clear timelines for judicial transfers
-
Transparent handling of representations
-
Internal accountability mechanisms that do not rely on external intervention
Because when constitutional institutions rely on silence and delay instead of clarity and discipline, it is not just procedure that suffers, public trust does too.