On Saturday, the Union Government notified the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court, where he will be at serial number 7, as opposed to being the senior-most judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Earlier this year, Justice Sreedharan had ordered a First Information Report (FIR) against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for using “scurrilous language” against Col. Sofia Quraishi. Col. Quraishi was one of the two women officers who briefed the media regarding Operation Sindoor.
On 25 August 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 Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court. However, on 14 October, the Supreme Court Collegium withdrew its recommendation to transfer Justice Sreedharan to Chhattisgarh at the request of the Union Government. It 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.
The reasons for the government-sought reconsideration of the Collegium’s recommendation are not publicly available.
The transfer of judges, including a Chief Justice, from one High Court to another is made as per Article 222(1) of the Constitution of India. The transfer is made for the “better administration of justice”. The consent of a judge for his first or subsequent transfer is not required.
In the Second Judges Case of 1993, a nine-judge Constitution Bench held that the opinion of the CJI not only has primacy but is also determinative in matters of transfer of High Court Chief Justices and judges.
While hearing a contempt petition over delays in the appointment and transfer of judges, on 7 November 2023, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that once judges are appointed, where they perform judicial duties should not really be a matter of concern to the government.
It begs the question: what interest could the government possibly have in seeking the transfer of Justice Sreedharan to the Allahabad High Court instead of the Chhattisgarh High Court, where he was originally proposed to be transferred?
Justice Sreedharan was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 7 April 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 Chhattisgarh High Court, 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 28 March 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. 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 6 March 2025, the Collegium, headed by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, decided to repatriate Justice Sreedharan to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 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 4 April 2025. A permanent Chief Justice was appointed to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 16 April 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.
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 offences 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.”
A divison Bench led by Justice Sreedharan also took suo motu cognizance of a YouTube video showing a young man from the OBC Community sitting in a temple and being compelled to wash the feet of a person and consume the said water. The Bench had expressed concerns over repeated instances of caste-related violence and discriminative actions in the State.