Gujarat lawyers continue to protest proposed transfer of Justice Sandeep Bhatt

Ahmedabad: The Supreme Court Collegium has officially recommended the transfer of 14 judges across various High Courts, including two from the Gujarat High Court—Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt and Justice Manvendranath Roy. As per the proposal, Justice Bhatt is to be transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while Justice Roy has been recommended for transfer to the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) has strongly opposed the move, announcing an indefinite strike in protest against Justice Bhatt’s transfer. On Wednesday morning, a large number of lawyers gathered outside the Gujarat High Court, raising slogans of “Ekta Zindabad.”

This development comes two days after the GHCAA resolved to abstain from work against the collegium’s proposal. Following the resolution, members visited courtrooms to inform judges and lawyers of their decision and sought adjournments, after which most benches retired to chambers to avoid passing adverse orders in the absence of advocates. GHCAA president Brijesh Trivedi clarified that the abstention was not a strike but a form of protest where courts were not compelled to halt functioning.

The association has also formed a six-member committee—comprising Trivedi, secretary Hardik Brahmbhatt, senior lawyers Asim Pandya and B.M. Mangukiya, Bar Council member Dipen Dave, and Bhargav Bhatt—to present their objections before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and collegium members. The committee is scheduled to meet the CJI at 1:50 pm to urge reconsideration of Justice Bhatt’s transfer.

Earlier controversies

Justice Sandeep Bhatt had previously pulled up the Gujarat High Court registry over missing files, expressing dissatisfaction at the non-installation of CCTV cameras despite directions issued two years earlier. He observed that the missing file issue could have been resolved quickly had CCTVs been installed. However, a division bench later quashed his order, holding that while his concerns were valid, a single judge did not have the authority to issue directions to the registry, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Justice. DeshGujarat