A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the issues raised were not justiciable and lay within the administrative domain of the CJI and the collegium system.

“We do not think the issues raised are justiciable. Such issues are required to be considered by the competent authority on the administrative side. We thus do not deem it proper to entertain this petition,” the bench said in its order, disposing of the plea.

The petition was filed by advocate A Prem Kumar, who questioned the validity of the Madras high court collegium’s recommendations made on November 9, 2025, after justice Banu — then the second seniormost judge of the high court — was excluded from the collegium and replaced by the next judge in the order of seniority, justice MS Ramesh.

The plea argued that the high court collegium could not have presumed that justice Banu had ceased to be a member of the Madras high court collegium when, at the time the recommendations were made, her transfer to the Kerala high court had not been operationalised. It contended that any recommendation made by a collegium so constituted would be constitutionally invalid.

However, the top court declined to examine the issue on the judicial side, with the bench observing during the hearing that such matters were best left to the institutional strength of the collegium system. “We can ensure that the CJI and fellow judges are strong enough to take suitable decisions,” the bench remarked.

The petition came against the backdrop of an unusual constitutional standoff triggered by justice Banu’s initial refusal to take charge at 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 in December after CJI Kant wrote to the Union law minister seeking the President’s intervention and urging the government to prescribe a firm outer limit for justice Banu to assume charge at her new posting.

Acting on the CJI’s communication, the Union government on December 12 issued a rare and explicit directive ordering justice Banu to take charge at the Kerala high court on or before December 20. The notification, issued “after consultation with the Chief Justice of India”, stated that “the President… is pleased to direct” justice Banu to assume charge within the stipulated time.

Justice Banu eventually joined the Kerala high court on December 19, a day before the deadline.

The episode also sparked questions in Parliament. On December 12, the matter was raised in the Lok Sabha by Congress MP Km Sudha R, who sought to know whether justice Banu continued to function as part of the Madras high court collegium and whether she had participated in recommending judges despite the transfer.

While the government did not answer these questions directly, law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal reiterated the constitutional framework governing judicial transfers, emphasising that under Article 217(1)(c), a judge must vacate office upon being transferred by the President to another high court. He underlined that transfers are initiated by the CJI in consultation with the four seniormost Supreme Court judges, and that the CJI’s view was determinative.

Justice Banu’s continued presence at the Madras high court during the interregnum also prompted the Tamil Nadu government to seek clarification on the validity of the collegium’s composition while forwarding the November recommendations. Although the state did not object to the names recommended on merit, it questioned whether substituting justice Banu with the next judge in line had any constitutional basis.