Repeated Transfers of Justice Atul Sreedharan Fuel Bench-Bar Concerns

A Judge on the Move

The transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan has been a hot news in the legal circles of India especially due to his frequent transfers. Judges and lawyers are raising serious concerns regarding the successive moves which most people term as being abnormal. Sreedharan, who is a senior judge, independent in nature, has had several transfer proposals in very minimal time. This has brought an insecurity of the stability and autonomy of the court system.

This whole scenario started when Justice Sreedharan, on his personal sense of ethics, applied to transfer to Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2023. His reason as to why he requested this was due to the fact that his daughter was just starting her legal practice with the same court and he did not want any conflict of interest to arise. Then he was relocated to Jammu and Kashmir High Court. But this was not the end of his transfers and this is what has brought about the controversy that has rocked the legal fraternity.

The transfer of senior judge is not viewed as a mere administrative issue when it is done repeatedly. The whole process has started to be questioned by members of the Bar which comprises lawyers and their associations as well as by members of the Bench or the very judges themselves. They fear that this kind of constant mobility might interfere with the operations of the court and send the wrong message to the other judges. Their fear is centred around the fact that such transfers might not be due to administrative reasons but other reasons that have not been stated.

An Unprecedented Change of Mind

The Supreme Court Collegium made a last minute reversal. The Collegium then passed a new resolution within just two months of the initial proposal of the transfer of Justice Sreedharan to the Chhattisgarh High Court. Instead, this new order declared that he will be transferred to the Allahabad High Court. This was a very strange twist and it triggered an alarm among the people who were watching the proceedings at the court and among the experts in the field of law.

The reason of this change as stated in the official resolution was so shocking. The Collegium openly said that it was modifying its decision on reconsideration requested by the Government. Such an admission was something unusual and unexpected. It confirmed that the executive arm or the central government had directly intervened and requested the judiciary to reverse its decision regarding the post of a judge. This has raised serious doubts concerning the separation of powers.

This is perceived to be a problem since judiciary is expected to be independent of the government. The Collegium system was made in way that judges could not be influenced by politics. The Collegium has raised fears that this independence is deteriorating by publicly acknowledging that it has made a transfer at the bequest of the government. Critics believe that this creates a precedent that is dangerous as now the government is able to dictate who gets posted as a judge and where.

The fact that no further elaboration is provided has not helped the situation. The resolution of the Collegium did not state the reasons why the change was desired by the government, and why the Collegium was willing to sanction it. This lack of transparency is one of the reasons that have led to the concern. It makes lawyers, judges and the public at guess at the actual reasons of the move with many having a fear that it has something to do with the independent orientation of the judge.

A Reputation for Independence

One of the main aspects of the issue of transfers of Justice Sreedharan is his image of a pro-liberty judge. During his career, he has been identified as independent and ready to make the government accountable. During his time in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, he made a number of high profile orders. His bench quashed several preventive orders of detention that are orders that enable the state to hold somebody without a formal trial.

His court proceedings in Madhya Pradesh too attracted a lot of attention. He had belonged to a bench which was said to have assumed suo motu cognizance of sensitive cases i.e. the court had started the case itself. In one case, his bench had ordered the name of a state cabinet minister be registered on an FIR, on account of his derogatory statements against a female army officer. In another case, he noticed one viral video that showed a caste based atrocity and made powerful remarks about these foods.

The history of aggressive judicial dictums is now being attached to his transfer saga. It is widely thought by many in the legal profession that his readiness to challenge the actions of the government and his decision to rule in favor of the interests of individual people could have been inconvenient to the government. This is feared to be not an ordinary administrative, but rather a punishment. This sends a shiver to other judges that they are as well subject to being relocated in case their decision is unfavorable to government.

This is not the first time such pattern was observed and cases with similar cases are noted by legal experts in the past. When such transfers are made of judges who are perceived to be independent and fearless, it is usually considered as an effort to sideline the judges. This generates a climate of fear and may deter judges to exercise courage in ruling and this will undermine the whole judicial system and its purpose in putting a check to power.