Judicial transfers: A case for transparency to scotch rumours

New Delhi, Sept 7 : Two judges of the Delhi High Court have been abruptly transferred, one merely after a month of taking charge. At the same time, there are reports that the Chief Justice of India has been formally asked to look into the conduct of a third judge of the same court and take a decision on his fate.

As no reasons were given for the transfer of two judges, the people are left to wonder why. And where clarity is absent, rumours take root. And who feeds on those rumours? None but the unscrupulous, who spin scandal where there may be none. There are speculations that the transfers were ordered to preserve the integrity of the bench.

The judiciary is a bedrock of democracy and has the task of upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. Lapses in judicial conduct, be they on the premises of the court or beyond national borders, risks eroding that trust.

The Chief Justice of India, who is reportedly examining the complaint against the third judge, faces the delicate task of balancing fairness to the accused judge with the responsibility of safeguarding the image of the institution.

“The judiciary cannot afford even the slightest dent in its credibility. Judges, by virtue of their office, must embody restraint, dignity, and accountability,” remarked a senior advocate. The Chief Justice must send a strong message that the institution values integrity above all, he said.

While transfers of judges from one state to another are not uncommon, the simultaneous transfer of two judges and the unresolved complaint against a third have magnified concerns about maintaining public confidence.

Legal analysts stress that the judiciary’s strength lies not merely in its judgments but in the faith of the people who seek justice within its halls. That faith is sustained by ensuring the integrity of those delivering justice. Opacity in judicial transfers shakes that belief.

For if the court does not speak, others will. If reasons are withheld, shadows rush to fill the void.

When transfers come swiftly and without word, the silence of the institution itself lends credence to speculation. And speculation, once unleashed, is a cruel master. It invents motives, it maligns reputations, and it corrodes public trust. Would it not be better that the court itself speak plainly, than allow gossip to parade as truth?

What harm lies in candour? What danger lurks in reasoned explanation? None. On the contrary, clarity would fortify the institution. It would disarm mischief-makers and reassure citizens that their temple of justice has no locked doors, no hidden chambers.

Discretion has its place. But secrecy, when absolute, becomes a burden. And the people, whose faith alone sustains the court, deserve to know why those who dispense justice are moved from one bench to another. To tell them is not weakness; it is strength. To tell them is not concession; it is confidence.

The judiciary risks nothing by speaking. But by remaining silent, it risks everything.