The Centre has transferred Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court. The move has raised questions as the government has not disclosed the reasons behind the sudden transfer.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Union Government on Saturday notified the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court. The move raised questions not just because Justice Sreedharan was the senior-most judge in Madhya Pradesh, but because at his new posting, he will rank seventh in seniority, effectively removing him from the High Court Collegium.
This change comes against the backdrop of a series of transfers, reconsiderations, and government interventions that have prompted observers to question whether judicial independence is being subtly tested once again.
ALSO READ: ‘No Alimony for Financially Independent Spouses’: Delhi High Court
Justice Atul Sreedharan, appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in April 2016, has earned a reputation for principled and fearless adjudication. Earlier this year, he directed the registration of an FIR against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for allegedly using “scurrilous language” against Col. Sofia Quraishi, one of the women Army officers who briefed the media after Operation Sindoor.
Throughout his judicial career, whether in Madhya Pradesh or during his tenure at the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Justice Sreedharan has consistently emphasized personal liberty and constitutional propriety, often questioning arbitrary actions of law enforcement authorities.
Transfers and Reconsiderations
Justice Sreedharan’s recent administrative journey reflects a complex interplay between the Collegium’s recommendations and governmental preferences:
- March 2023: The Supreme Court Collegium, led by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, transferred Justice Sreedharan to Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh upon his own request, citing that his daughter was beginning her legal practice in Indore.
- March 2025: Under CJI Sanjiv Khanna, the Collegium repatriated him to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, just before he was due to become Acting Chief Justice in J&K.
- August 2025: The new Collegium, headed by CJI B.R. Gavai, recommended his transfer to Chhattisgarh High Court.
- October 2025: At the Union Government’s request, the Collegium withdrew its earlier recommendation and instead transferred him to the Allahabad High Court.
The reasons for the government’s request remain undisclosed.
Constitutional Context
Under Article 222(1) of the Constitution of India, judges may be transferred from one High Court to another “for the better administration of justice.”
However, as the Second Judges Case (1993) clarified, the Chief Justice of India’s opinion is not only primary but determinative in such matters.
While the government may seek reconsideration, it is the Collegium’s prerogative to decide the outcome. The Supreme Court itself has observed, notably in November 2023, that “where judges perform their judicial duties should not really be a matter of concern to the government.”
That principle now feels tested.
Had Justice Sreedharan been moved to the Chhattisgarh High Court, he would have ranked third in seniority, retaining his seat in the High Court Collegium. In the Allahabad High Court, however, he drops to seventh position, and thus loses that role.
This subtle shift may appear administrative, but it has deep institutional implications. The Collegium, composed of the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges of a High Court, plays a decisive role in judicial appointments and transfers. Removing a strong voice from that table, even indirectly, alters the balance of influence.
Justice Sreedharan’s judicial philosophy has been marked by an uncompromising defence of individual rights, particularly under draconian laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
During his tenure in Jammu & Kashmir, he questioned the arbitrary use of these laws, warning against the misuse of “national security” as a psychological weapon to “overawe courts.”
He wrote passionately that the judiciary must “stand as a bulwark against excesses”, even in matters cloaked under the veil of national interest.
More recently, in Madhya Pradesh, he initiated suo motu proceedings against judicial overreach, reprimanding a fellow judge for ordering an inquiry against a district judge without justification. He also took cognizance of a disturbing caste discrimination incident where an OBC youth was humiliated in a temple, underscoring that social justice remains an unfinished constitutional promise.