A forum of lawyers and activists has condemned the transfer of Madhya Pradesh High Court judge, Justice Atul Sreedharan, to Allahabad High Court, linking the decision to his adverse ruling against state minister Vijay Shah over his controversial remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) said Justice Sreedharan was originally supposed to be transferred to Chhattisgarh High Court, but was shifted to Allahabad High Court at the request of the Centre, raising concern over the “independence of the judiciary”.
The CJAR said the Supreme Court collegium had in August recommended the transfer of 14 judges, including Justice Sreedharan, from Madhya Pradesh High Court to Chhattisgarh High Court. However, on October 14, the top court issued a statement noting that “on reconsideration sought by the Government”, the collegium changed its decision and decided to transfer Justice Sreedharan to Allahabad.
“The statement by the SC Collegium does not reveal any reasons on why the government sought reconsideration and what persuaded the collegium to agree to the government’s demands and change its decisions,” the CJAR said.
The CJAR alleged that while in Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sreedharan was part of a division bench that had ordered an FIR against BJP leader Shah over his remarks against Colonel Qureshi.
“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,” the CJAR said.
The CJAR said Justice Sreedharan had a reputation for being independent and assertive, willing to hold governments accountable for their actions. “To see that such a judge is being transferred around for unexplained reasons makes the public question the intentions of the collegium,” it added.
The organisation claimed that Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Allahabad was a “punishment” posting, which deprived him of the opportunity to be elevated to Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court. It said the basis for changing the recommendation was contrary to the Constitution. “Two constitution benches... had earlier ruled that transfers are to be in public interest and to protect the institution of the judiciary, not the convenience or interests of the Union Government,” it said.
The complete lack of transparency in the matter is alarming, it added.