An unexpected shift by the Supreme Court Collegium regarding the transfer of Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge, Justice Atul Sreedharan, to the Allahabad High Court has brought the issue of Executive influence in judicial appointments back into sharp focus. This decision, seemingly made to align with the Union Government’s preferences, overturns an earlier proposal to move Justice Sreedharan to the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Collegium’s resolution on October 14 was notably brief, offering little insight into why its initial recommendation for Justice Sreedharan was withdrawn. It simply stated that the reconsideration was prompted by a “reconsideration sought by the government.” Crucially, there were no details provided as to why the government opposed his transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court, where he would have held a senior position as a member of that High Court’s Collegium, directly involved in selecting future judges. The original recommendation for Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Chhattisgarh was made during Collegium meetings on August 25 and 26, placing him as the first among 14 High Court judges proposed for transfer or repatriation that month.
In the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sreedharan would find himself seventh in seniority, effectively outside the direct influence of the High Court Collegium. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, did not disclose its reasons for accepting the government’s suggestion for the Allahabad transfer. It’s important to note that the Collegium possesses the power of veto and could have reiterated its initial August recommendation, which would have obliged the government to comply.
This isn’t an isolated incident. In recent years, the Supreme Court Collegium has, on several occasions, appeared to yield to government preferences concerning judicial transfers. A notable example occurred in 2018 when the Centre opposed the Collegium’s recommendation to appoint Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Justice Kureshi’s past decisions in Gujarat’s ‘fake’ encounter cases had reportedly caused discomfort. Consequently, the Collegium agreed to appoint him as Chief Justice of the smaller Tripura High Court. He was eventually made Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court just six months before his retirement, despite being one of the most senior High Court judges, and was notably not considered for a Supreme Court appointment.
Similarly, the Supreme Court Collegium was compelled to withdraw its September 2022 recommendation to appoint Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, then Chief Justice of Orissa, as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. This recall came after months of silence from the Centre regarding the recommendation.
“The recommendation has remained pending with the Government of India without any response. Dr. Justice Muralidhar now demits office on August 7, 2023 leaving less than four months’ time. In view of this delay, the resolution recommending the transfer of Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar is recalled,” the Supreme Court Collegium stated in its April 2023 resolution.
Justice Sreedharan himself is undergoing his third transfer. His initial move from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in 2023 was at his own request, as he wished to avoid being a judge in a state where his daughter practiced law.
During his tenure at the J&K and Ladakh High Court, Justice Sreedharan was part of a Bench that notably struck down several preventive detention orders issued under the Public Safety Act.
He was repatriated to Madhya Pradesh in March 2025. Back in Madhya Pradesh, he served on a Bench that initiated suo motu cognizance of alleged remarks made by State Minister Vijay Shah against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi during Operation Sindoor, leading to an order for an FIR against the BJP leader.
In August, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court, where he would have become the second most senior judge.
Reacting to the recall of the proposed transfer, the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms emphasized that, according to the “Second and Third Judges’ cases,” transfers must be driven by public interest and for the protection of the judiciary’s institutional integrity, not the convenience or interests of the Union Government. The NGO stated that “Such a change in recommendation, contrary to procedure, sends out a wrong signal to the public on the Collegium’s motives and intent.”