ON OCTOBER 14, THE SUPREME COURT COLLEGIUM withdrew its recommendation to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
The Collegium has now decided to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court instead. In a statement published on the Supreme Court’s website, it stated that the decision to modify the recommendation was made following a reconsideration sought by the Government.
On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and B.V. Nagarathna, recommended the transfer of 14 judges, including Justice Sreedharan, from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. On Monday, the Union Government cleared 11 of these transfers.
The Collegium judge Justice Maheshwari hails from the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Justice Sreedharan was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on April 7, 2016. He is the senior-most judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court and thus a member of the High Court Collegium. Had he been transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, he would have been at serial number 3 and remained a member of that High Court’s Collegium. However, at the Allahabad High Court, he will be at serial number 7 and thus will not be part of the High Court Collegium.
On March 28, 2023, a Supreme Court Collegium headed by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud recommended the transfer of Justice Sreedharan to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
The Collegium judge Justice Maheshwari hails from the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
During CJI Chandrachud’s tenure, the Collegium provided brief reasons for transfers. The resolution uploaded on the Court’s website stated that Justice Sreedharan had requested the transfer because his elder daughter was set to begin her legal practice the following year and would appear before the District Court and the Indore Bench of the High Court.
On March 6, 2025, the Collegium, headed by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, decided to repatriate Justice Sreedharan to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. At that time, Justice Sreedharan was about to become Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, following the retirement of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan on April 4, 2025.
A permanent Chief Justice was appointed to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on April 16, 2025.
Within five months of his repatriation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sreedharan was proposed for transfer, first to the Chhattisgarh High Court and now to the Allahabad High Court, at the Government’s request.
Notably, a bench headed by Justice Sreedharan at the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu action against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for using “scurrilous language” against Col. Sofia Quraishi and ordered an FIR against him.
During his tenure at the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Justice Sreedharan passed several orders upholding personal liberty.
Article 14, a web portal, reported that Justice Sreedharan was vocal in questioning illegal detentions during his time in Jammu & Kashmir. He focused on individual liberty, particularly in cases involving preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (‘PSA’) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’).
In several cases, Justice Sreedharan challenged what he viewed as the arbitrary use of the PSA and UAPA, ensuring that law enforcement agencies did not overstep their authority.
In April 2024, Justice Sreedharan accused the government of attempting to “psychologically overawe” courts by invoking national security, nationalism, allegiance to Pakistan, radical Islam, and secession of Jammu & Kashmir from India, rather than focusing on the facts of the case.
Recently, a bench headed by Justice Sreedharan initiated suo motu proceedings after a single judge Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta at the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an inquiry against a district judge who had discharged accused persons from offenses punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, and 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Sreedharan ruled that such a direction was chilling.
He observed, “Firstly, it concludes that the order of discharge passed by the Ld. 1st ADSJ was to ‘give undue advantage’ to the accused, and secondly, it speculates ulterior motives on the part of the Ld. 1st ADSJ by observing, ‘…it appears that the 1st Additional Sessions Judge has ulterior motives.’ This, unfortunately, was absolutely uncalled for and a violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s consistent directions to the High Court to desist from such observations in judicial orders.”