- Why in news
- On 25 July 2026, the Law Ministry told the Lok Sabha how High Court judges are transferred under Article 222 and the Memorandum of Procedure, and how they are appointed.
- What it is
- Article 222 lets the President transfer a High Court judge to another High Court after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The Memorandum of Procedure is a document that sets out the steps for appointing and transferring higher judiciary judges. The 1998 MoP follows the Second and Third Judges cases.
- Article 222
- The President may transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consulting the CJI.
- Who starts a transfer
- The CJI initiates a transfer proposal in consultation with the four senior-most puisne judges of the Supreme Court.
- Ground for transfer
- Transfers are to be made in public interest, to promote better administration of justice. The MoP sets no timeline for them.
- Who starts a High Court appointment
- The Chief Justice of the concerned High Court initiates it, in consultation with two senior-most puisne judges of that court.
- Timing of recommendations
- High Courts must recommend at least six months before a vacancy arises.
- Articles for appointment
- Articles 124 and 217 cover appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges; Article 224 covers additional and acting High Court judges.
Don’t confuse with Article 222 vs Article 217: Article 222 deals with transfer of a judge between High Courts. Article 217 deals with appointment and conditions of the office of a High Court judge.
Don’t confuse with Transfer vs appointment initiation: For transfers the CJI initiates with four senior-most puisne judges. For High Court appointments the High Court Chief Justice initiates with two senior-most puisne judges of that court.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
- A set procedure for transfers and appointments protects judicial independence and keeps both the judiciary and the executive in the process.
Problems
- The MoP sets no timeline for transfers, which can cause uncertainty.
- The collegium system is criticised for opacity, and appointments are often delayed.
Way forward
- Publish clear timelines and reasons for transfers and appointments to improve transparency.
- Work out a transparent appointment mechanism that keeps judicial independence.
Put in your answer
Second Judges case (1993): The Supreme Court's 1993 judgment laid the base for the collegium system and the 1998 MoP.
Executive-judiciary process: The Government describes appointment as a continuous, integrated and collaborative process between the executive and the judiciary.
- 2017Mains GS2 · Q2Critically examine the Supreme Court's NJAC judgment on higher judiciary appointments
- 2025Mains GS2 · Q13Discuss evolution of the collegium system and critically examine its advantages and disadvantages
- 2025Mains GS2 · Q11Explain constitutional morality and balancing judicial independence with judicial accountability
- 2012Prelims Q60Which provision safeguards Supreme Court autonomy, including CJI consultation in appointments
- 2019Prelims Q45Whether the 99th Amendment striking down relates to judicial independence and election of PM
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
No practice question for this one; the card may still help an answer. Why: Standing constitutional provision with Mains relevance (laws/judgments 35 of 161), but this reply is routine with no new decision.
Worth revising until Prelims 2028: most news questions come within two years of the event.