The transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court has triggered a vocal outcry from the collective Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform which called the move “punitive” and decried the “complete lack of transparency” in the decision-making process. The notification, issued by the Union government under Article 222 of the Constitution, confirmed the transfer following a recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium that was altered at the government’s request.
Under the new order, Justice Sreedharan—who was one of the senior-most judges at the MPHC and part of its High Court collegium—will move to the AHC at a lower seniority position, thereby removing him from that institution’s influential judicial-appointments committee. The collegium had originally, in August, recommended his transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court but on 14 October modified that decision “on reconsideration sought by the Government”. Those internal deliberations remain undisclosed.
CJAR’s statement said that the shift from MPHC to AHC was more than a routine administrative transfer, citing the judge’s active record on liberty-rights, including suo motu orders and judgments scrutinising the exercise of preventive detention powers under the UAPA and PSA frameworks. While serving in the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Justice Sreedharan admonished law-enforcement agencies for what he described as “twisted reasoning” in detentions. His transfer again raised concern that judges who assert judicial independence may be sidelined.
Legal observers note that the change in destination widens the gulf between the criteria officially governing judicial transfers and the opaque realities. The Constitution mandates transfer “for the better administration of justice” with no judge’s consent required. Previous jurisprudence emphasises the need for compelling transparency when transfers affect seniority or eligibility for elevation. In this case the absence of publicly stated reasons raises questions about whether the government’s role in seeking reconsideration might compromise institutional autonomy.
The pattern of Justice Sreedharan’s transfers adds to the scrutiny. After seeking transfer from Madhya Pradesh to Jammu & Kashmir in 2023—ostensibly because his daughter was to practise in MP—the judge was repatriated back to MPHC in March 2025. The August collegium recommendation and subsequent October modification thus represent his third posting in under fifteen months. Critics argue that the timing and impact on his role in the collegium suggest an erosion of his institutional standing rather than a neutral administrative step.
In August 2025, for instance, while at MPHC, Justice Sreedharan ordered an FIR against a state minister for caste-ist remarks following a mass-circulated video. Legal practitioners say that his intervention in politically sensitive matters may have drawn unwelcome attention from the executive. With the transfer to AHC placing him at serial number seven—and thereby excluding him from the AHC collegium—CJAR describes the posting as a “punishment assignment”.
The Supreme Court Collegium’s public statement on the transfer confirms only that it was modified following a government request, but does not reveal the grounds on which the request was made or the criteria applied in its decision to accede. The final appointment relies on the President acting in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, but the interplay between the executive and judicial bodies remains structurally under-explained.
While the government and the judiciary traditionally operate in a balance of institutional independence and accountability, the optics of this transfer feed wider concerns. Judicial-appointments transparency is a recurring issue in India, especially when the transfer affects a judge’s role in selecting peers or potential elevation. The label of “punishment transfer” brings into question whether operational discretion is being used to signal consequences for bold jurisprudence.
Karnataka Suspends Hostel Worker Over RSS Event Participation 