The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Madras High Court collegium’s recommendation for promotion of judicial officers in November 2025, which was filed after Justice J Nisha Banu was dropped from the collegium after he was transferred to the Kerala High Court, even though he is yet to assume his new post.
No judicial review of collegium call: SC on transfer of Justice BanuA bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Jayamalya Bagchi said the issues raised were not justiciable and were within the administrative domain of the CJI and collegium system.
“We do not consider the issues raised to be justiciable. Such issues require administrative consideration by the competent authority. We do not consider it proper to entertain this petition,” the bench said in its order disposing of the petition.
The petition was filed by advocate A Prem Kumar, who questioned the validity of the Madras High Court collegium’s recommendation on November 9, 2025, that Justice Banu – then the second-seniorest judge of the high court – be removed from the collegium and replaced by the next judge in the order of seniority, Justice MS Ramesh.
The petition argued that the High Court Collegium could not presume that Justice Banu had ceased to be a member of the Madras High Court Collegium, when the recommendations were made, his transfer to the Kerala High Court was not effected. It argued that any recommendation made by a collegium so constituted would be constitutionally invalid.
More Read
However, the apex court declined to examine the matter judicially, observing during the bench hearing that such matters were left to the institutional powers of the collegium system. “We can confirm that the CJI and fellow judges are strong enough to take appropriate decisions,” the bench observed.
The petition came in the backdrop of an unusual constitutional standoff as Justice Banu initially refused to take charge of the Kerala High Court despite a formal transfer notification issued on October 14, 2025 under Article 222 of the Constitution.
As reported by HT earlier, the two-month impasse escalated after CJI Kant wrote to the Union Law Minister in December seeking the President’s intervention and requested the government to set a firm outer limit for Justice Banu to take over in his new posting.
More Read
Acting on the CJI’s communication, the central government issued a rare and sweeping directive on December 12 directing Justice Banu to take charge of the Kerala High Court on or before December 20. The notification issued “after consultation with the Chief Justice of India” said the President was pleased to direct Justice Banu to take charge within a specified period.
Justice Banu finally joined the Kerala High Court on December 19, a day before the deadline.
The episode also raised questions in Parliament. On 12 December, the matter was raised in the Lok Sabha by Congress MP KM Sudha R, who sought to know whether Justice Banu continued to serve as part of the Madras High Court Collegium and whether he participated in the recommendations of judges despite being transferred.
Although the government did not directly answer the question, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal reiterated the constitutional framework governing judicial transfers, stressing that under Article 217(1)(c), a judge must vacate office if transferred to another high court by the President. He underlined that the CJI initiated the transfer in consultation with four senior Supreme Court judges and the CJI’s view was decisive.
Justice Banu’s continued presence in the Madras High Court in the interim prompted the Tamil Nadu government to seek clarification on the legality of the constitution of the collegium while forwarding the November recommendations. Although the state did not object to the recommended names on merit, it questioned whether there was any constitutional basis for replacing Justice Banu with the next judge.
