‘Punishment Transfer’ Signal, Says CJAR on Justice Sreedharan’s Move to Allahabad HC
In August 2025, the collegium proposed Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Chhattisgarh, but after a Union government request, it reassigned him to Allahabad in October without disclosing reasons
CJAR urges Supreme Court to recall the transfer decision of Justice Atul Sreedharan
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has urged the Supreme Court Collegium to recall its recent decision transferring Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court, calling the move deeply troubling and contrary to constitutional principles.
The statement reads, "While in Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sreedharan was part of a division bench that had significantly orderd an FIR against BJP’s Vijay Shah over his remarks against Colonel Sofia Qureshi who held a series of media briefings during Operation Sindoor. While transfers are an incidence of service as a High Court judge, the circumstances of his transfers raise troubling questions about the independence of the judiciary".
CJAR, whose executive committee includes advocate Prashant Bhushan as convenor, said it was deeply concerned by the manner in which the collegium altered its earlier transfer recommendation following a request from the Union Government. In August 2025, the collegium had proposed transferring Justice Sreedharan to the Chhattisgarh High Court, but on October 14, it issued a statement noting that “on reconsideration sought by the Government,” the judge would instead be posted to the Allahabad High Court. No reasons were made public for either the government’s request or the collegium’s subsequent change.
“This is the third transfer of Justice Sreedharan, and the complete lack of transparency in the matter is alarming,” CJAR said.
Justice Sreedharan, originally from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was earlier transferred to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in 2023 on his own request to allow his daughter to practice in Indore. During his tenure there, his bench had struck down several preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act, earning a reputation for judicial independence. He was repatriated to Madhya Pradesh in March 2025, and his latest proposed transfer came only months later.
CJAR noted that while transfers are part of judicial service, the pattern and frequency of Justice Sreedharan’s transfers appeared 'punitive'. The group highlighted that if he had been sent to Chhattisgarh, as originally recommended, he would have been the second senior-most judge, making him eligible to serve on the High Court’s collegium and a possible contender for elevation as Chief Justice. In Allahabad, by contrast, he will rank only seventh in seniority.
“To an outside observer, this gives the impression of a punishment transfer,” the statement said, adding that the decision “sends a wrong signal” about the collegium’s willingness to accommodate executive preference.
CJAR cited the Second and Third Judges’ Cases, in which the Supreme Court had ruled that judicial transfers should be made solely in the public interest and to preserve institutional integrity, not on the basis of government intervention. The request of the Union Government for reconsideration, and the collegium’s acceptance of it, is wholly contrary to law and the Constitution, the group said.
It also criticised the collegium for “complete lack of transparency,” pointing out that neither the government’s communication nor the deliberations leading to the altered decision have been disclosed. The statement contrasted this opacity with the Supreme Court’s own insistence on transparency in appointments to statutory bodies such as information commissions and the Central Vigilance Commission.
CJAR concluded by demanding that the Supreme Court collegium recall its resolution transferring Justice Sreedharan to Allahabad and make public the reasons behind his and other judges’ transfers. “To see that such a judge is being transferred around for unexplained reasons makes the public question the intentions of the collegium,” it said.