Justice or politics? A closer look at the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan

The recent decision of the Supreme Court collegium to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan to Allahabad High Court instead of Chhattisgarh High Court, as previously announced, marks a moment of quiet but serious concern for India’s judiciary.

It is not the change of location that is alarming, but the rare and explicit admission by the collegium that the reversal was made after a “reconsideration” sought by the government. In a system that puts a premium on judicial independence, this public acknowledgment of executive influence is not just troubling — it’s dangerous.

In May this year, Justice Sreedharan was part of the division bench in Madhya Pradesh which had taken cognisance after state cabinet minister Vijay Shah passed communal and derogatory remarks against Colonel Sofia Qureshi, a member of the joint services media team during Operation Sindoor.

In a suo motu case, Justice Sreedharan ordered the registration of an FIR against Shah. The court not only reprimanded the minister but also exposed the state’s attempt to file a deliberately weak FIR, accusing the police of “gross subterfuge” intended to protect the accused.

Before this, his tenure in Jammu and Kashmir saw him quashing multiple detentions under the controversial Public Safety Act (PSA).

Justice Sreedharan began his legal career in 1992 in Delhi before shifting to Indore in 2001. He was appointed as an additional judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court in April 2016 and a permanent judge in March 2018.

From May 2023 to March 2025, he was at the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court before being transferred back to his parent high court in Madhya Pradesh. The collegium recommended his transfer to Chhattisgarh in August this year.

According to the apex court website, “The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on October 14, 2025, on reconsideration sought by the Government, resolved to recommend that Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad instead of the High Court of Chhattisgarh.”

In recent years, Justice Sreedharan has developed a reputation for judicial courage, unafraid to rule against the state, especially in politically sensitive matters. In one landmark decision in Jammu and Kashmir, he ruled that merely being a “fundamentalist Muslim” cannot be grounds for preventive detention — a verdict that subtly challenged the narrative of criminalising identity under the garb of national security.

Some of his key verdicts and observations at the Jammu and Kashmir high court include:

Shahbaz Ahmad Palla (August 2023): In the case of the PSA detention of a 22-year-old man accused of being a “hardcore fundamentalist”, Justice Sreedharan while quashing the detention ruled that being a “fundamentalist Muslim" — defined as someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam — could not be automatically equated with being an extremist or separatist.

Journalist Fahad Shah (November 2023): As part of a division bench, Justice Sreedharan granted bail to journalist Fahad Shah in a UAPA case (which often involves similar misuse to PSA), noting there was insufficient evidence to suggest his article provoked violence. The court quashed some of the charges against Shah.

Surjeet Singh (July 2024): In a landmark judgment, Justice Sreedharan imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a district magistrate for issuing an “unjustifiable” PSA detention order.

Criticism of 'copy-paste' arguments (April 2024): In a bail plea under the UAPA, Justice Sreedharan criticised the government for using “copy-paste” arguments to oppose bail and for attempting to “psychologically overawe” the court by invoking national security rather than presenting evidence.

Quashed detentions: He quashed at least four PSA detention orders during his time in J&K, finding that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence.

It is this fearlessness, this refusal to bow to political pressures, that seems to have made Justice Sreedharan inconvenient for the ruling establishment.

His original transfer to Chhattisgarh would have placed him as the second-most senior judge there, likely positioning him for elevation as chief justice. The government’s “reconsideration” has now landed him at Allahabad High Court, where he is seventh in seniority — a clear dilution of administrative influence.

While the executive does have the constitutional right to seek reconsideration of Collegium recommendations, the public acceptance of such a request, without providing any judicial rationale, sets a damaging precedent. It opens the door for political manoeuvring to shape the judiciary’s composition and weakens the perception of judges as impartial arbiters, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

This is not an isolated episode. In 2019, the Centre rejected the transfer of Justice Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court as chief justice of Madhya Pradesh high court. He was subsequently transferred as chief justice to Tripura.

His firm stance during politically-charged hearings when he was judge at the Gujarat High Court — the controversial Sohrabbudin fake encounter case being one in which he remanded then Gujarat home minister Amit Shah to police custody — was said to the reason behind this move. Though one of the senior-most high court judges in the country since 2019, the collegium never recommended Justice Kureshi for elevation to the Supreme Court.

In February 2020, Justice S. Muralidhar was transferred from Delhi High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court just hours after he directed Delhi Police to register cases against politicians for alleged hate speeches connected to the 2020 Delhi riots.

In both cases, similar patterns of interference were observed. Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, has even spoken of repeated government pressure on the collegium to act against specific judges.

While the collegium may discuss and change its internal recommendations, publicly disclosed reconsiderations, especially those explicitly mentioning the government's intervention, are extremely rare.

If the Supreme Court collegium does not resist executive overreach, our already enfeebled democracy has no hope. If the judiciary is to remain the last line of defence for the Constitution, the judiciary must not only be independent, it must also be seen to be so.