“An independent judiciary begins with who appoints what calibre of judges," wrote noted jurist Granville Austin in his book 'Working A Democratic Constitution - The Indian Experience'. The statement is equally true about transfer of high court judges. The recent transfer of Justice S Muralidhar from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again highlighted the issue that has been intermittently hitting national headlines. Many saw it as a "punitive" transfer as it came on a day he pulled up the Delhi Police for failing to register cases against some BJP leaders for making hate speeches in Delhi where several people had died in communal riots. In September last year, the senior-most high court judge in the country at that time and Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani had resigned after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended her to be transferred to the Meghalaya High Court — a new high court created in 2013. But more than the individual judges in question, the real issue is the transfer policy of the Supreme Court ollegium that lacks transparency, giving rise to all sorts of speculations about judicial transfers. Given the past experience, judicial transfers have been considered to be a sensitive issue by all those who want to see an independent judiciary capable of standing up to the executive and the legislature or the political class. An independent judiciary is a guarantee against executive and legislative excesses — intentional or otherwise. The judiciary has had very bad experience in 1970s which witnessed supersession of judges. Barely a few days after the historic Keshvanand Bharti case verdict in April 1973, four senior judges of the Supreme Court were superseded and Justice AN Ray was appointed the Chief Justice of India. The result, four senior-most judges resigned. Later, Justice HR Khanna was also superseded. Thereafter, during Emergency (June 26, 1975 to March 21, 1977) several high court judges were transferred without the consent of the CJI. In 1981, the then Law Minister P Shiv Shankar's infamous letter to Chief Justices of High Courts to obtain consent from additional judges for their appointment as permanent judges in some other high court was seen as a ploy to transfer "inconvenient" judges. Later, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SP Gupta versus Union of India (1981) — the first judges' case — declared that circular unconstitutional. Thereafter, in second and third judges' case, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself all powers of judicial appointment and transfer to ensure judicial independence. But unfortunately, the collegium has failed to function in a transparent manner. In October 2017, when the Collegium for the first time published its Resolution on it's the Supreme Court's website and announced that henceforth, all decisions, including those on appointments and transfers, would be made public along with reasons thereto, many thought transparency has dawned on the Supreme Court's top decision-making body. It was said the decision was being taken to "ensure transparency, and yet maintain confidentiality" in the collegium system. But instead of "resolutions" passed by the collegium; now it only publishes "statements" without giving any reasons beyond saying that the decision was taken "after taking into consideration the material on record". There were no reasons assigned to Justice Muralidhar's transfer in its statement dated February 12 when it recommended his transfer. The fact that Justice Muralidhar heard a PIL seeking registration of FIRs against certain BJP leader for their alleged hate speeches has politicized the issue with opposition parties accusing the government of hastily notifying his transfer. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad sought to defend the government by saying the transfer was recommended by the Collegium and that the judge had given his consent for it. Many senior bar members have expressed dismay over Justice Muralidhar's transfer. In fact, often high court bar associations protest against transfer of judges from their parent high courts to some other high court. The real issue is not the date of notifying Justice Muralidhar's transfer; it's the opaque manner in which the collegium generally takes decisions regarding transfer of high court judges. It's high time the collegium makes its transfer policy public and resume the practice of giving reasons for transfers as opacity in decision-making only gives rise to rumour-mongering, undermining the credibility of judiciary as an institution. It will also ensure that transfer of judges doesn't attract negative publicity.