The Gujarat High Court has recently been the focal point of discussions concerning the independence of the judiciary and the role of lawyers in upholding it. Instances of lawyers protesting proposed transfers of judges have ignited debates about potential pressures on the judiciary and the extent to which such actions are appropriate.

In one instance, lawyers of the Gujarat High Court went on strike to oppose the proposed transfer of Justices Sandeep N Bhatt and CM Roy. The Advocates' Association emphasized that there should be no external pressure on judges regarding transfers. They further conveyed a delegation to meet with the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium in New Delhi to discuss the matter.

Similarly, the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) abstained from judicial work in response to the Supreme Court collegium's consideration of Justice Sandeep Bhatt's transfer. The GHCAA had passed a resolution to abstain from work after news of the proposed transfer. Vice-President of GHCAA, Advocate Virat Popat, stated that a delegation was scheduled to meet with the Chief Justice of India in New Delhi.

These instances have raised concerns about the fine line between advocating for judicial independence and potentially exerting undue influence on the judiciary. While lawyers have a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, it is imperative that their actions do not compromise the impartiality and autonomy of judges.

The act of lawyers striking or boycotting proceedings to protest judicial transfers isn't new. In 2022, lawyers in Gujarat and Telangana protested the transfers of Justice Nikhil Kariel and Justice A Abhishek Reddy, respectively. The Gujarat High Court bar stated that the transfer of Justice Kariel, who they considered an "honest, upright and unbiased judge," threatened the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

These events highlight a recurring theme: the legal community's concern over perceived threats to judicial independence. However, they also bring to the forefront the question of whether such demonstrations could be seen as a form of pressure on the judiciary.

The judiciary's ability to function without external pressure is vital for a fair and just legal system. Judges must be free to make decisions based on the law and evidence, without fear of reprisal or coercion. The Gujarat High Court incidents serve as a reminder of the need to protect the judiciary's independence and ensure that all stakeholders, including lawyers, act in a manner that supports this fundamental principle.