Lawyers boycotted the proceedings of the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday as part of their protest against the Supreme Court Collegium transferring four judges to other states, The Indian Express reported.

Vivek Subba Reddy, president of the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, told Chief Justice NV Anjaria on Wednesday that transfer of judges had become a “very emotional issue for our lawyers”.

“We only request that cases should not be damaged,” Reddy was quoted as saying. “We have no personal interest, we are doing this for the institution…”

Due to the boycott, most cases in the High Court were adjourned, including in the Dharwad and Kalaburagi benches, The Indian Express reported. The proceedings continued in some courtrooms, including in the chief justice’s hall and the ones in which bail petitions are heard, The Hindu reported.

The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the transfer of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar to the Madras High Court, Justice Krishnan Natarajan to Kerala, Justice Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda to Gujarat and Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad to Orissa High Court.

Under the Collegium system, the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice of India, recommend appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. These recommendations are sent to the Union government.

The Collegium had said that the transfers were being undertaken to “infuse inclusivity and diversity at the level of High Courts and to strengthen the quality of administration of justice”.

However, the Advocates Association of Bengaluru has protested the decision. In a letter to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on April 19, the association had requested that the transfer order be withdrawn.

The lawyers had cited the efficiency and responsiveness of the High Court judges who were being transferred. “It will be tantamount to great injustice if such good and hardworking judges are transferred,” The Indian Express quoted the letter as having said.

The lawyers added that the Collegium had taken the decision without transparency and had disregarded concerns raised by the legal fraternity, Bar and Bench reported.