New Delhi: When Justice Atul Sreedharan was transferred to the Allahabad High Court last November, the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision came under heavy criticism. He was transferred “on consideration sought by the government”.
Now, almost 10 months later, the focus has shifted sharply on the judgments he has delivered on issues surrounding the State’s “arbitrary use” of power. His orders on offering namaz prayers, custodial death, high-handed conduct of authorities, and what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice” have always tended to protect people’s personal liberty.
The latest is an order quashing the detention under the National Security Act of Akriti Choudhury in the Noida workers’ protest case.
Here, he not only quashed the NSA preventive detention, but also ordered compensation for the DU student, to be paid from the salaries of the DM and other officials responsible for imposition of the NSA.
Controversy surrounding his transfer
Justice Sreedharan started practising under senior advocate Gopal Subramanium in the 1990s before shifting to Indore where he also became the panel counsel representing the MP government.
He represented the Central government before the MP High Court between 2005 and 2013 as a standing counsel.
Elevated as a judge of the MP HC in 2016, he was made permanent in 2018. If not elevated to the Supreme Court, he is set to retire in May, 2028.
Justice Sreedharan’s transfer history has been unusual, preventing him from becoming a member of HC Collegium.
In 2023, he had requested a transfer out of the MP HC so his daughter could practice in Indore. The SC Collegium, led by then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, transferred him to the Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh HC.
However, in March 2025, he was repatriated back to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where he was next in seniority to be included in the HC Collegium.
But before that, his name was recommended to be transferred to the Chhattisgarh HC in October 2025. He would have been a part of the Collegium in Chhattisgarh HC too, but before the transfer was confirmed by the Centre, the SC Collegium, “on consideration sought by the (Central) government”, decided to move him to Allahabad HC, where he is not in the seniority list to make it to the Collegium.
Rulings on namaz prayer & bulldozer action
Months before he censured the Noida DM in the NSA case, in an order in March, Justice Atul Sreedharan pulled up Sambhal Superintendent of Police and Collector while hearing a case related to offering Namaz.
In the March 2026 ruling, a bench led by Justice Sreedharan was dealing with a case filed by a person named Munazir Khan, who was prevented from offering namaz on public premises by the Sambhal Police, citing “law and order concerns”.
The BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government defended the move stating that permission to offer namaz was given only up to 20 worshippers and such restriction would be good to maintain “law and order”.
The court ruled that the Collector and the Superintendent of Police should either resign or seek transfer outside Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law and think “that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshipers within the premises”.
It is the State’s duty to ensure that every community can offer worship peacefully in the designated place of worship, Justice Sreedharan noted authoring the judgement.
If it is a private property, the court said, people should be able to perform worship without any permission from the State.
Justice Sreedharan also delivered an important split verdict on 20 July on the extent to which writ jurisdictions can be used to restrain what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”.
The case was filed by a Muslim family alleging that after criminal cases were registered against them, their home and business premises were being targeted in the name of “bulldozer justice”.
“People face ruination in just making a home and you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements,” Justice Sreedharan said quoting Bashir Badr at the starting of his judgement.
He applied the Supreme Court’s demolition safeguards and restrained demolition of an accused’s house for two years from the registration of an FIR – where the action bears a retributive character.
He carved out an exception for genuine public purpose which required one-year prior intimation before action against long-standing dwelling places. “This action by the State (bulldozer action) is largely to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms, on account of which the State of Uttar Pradesh (and now several others), has found it convenient to raze the dwelling place of citizens in the name of eradicating ‘land mafia’ and removing ‘illegal encroachments’, a phrase substituting the word ‘criminals’ after the Supreme Court judgement against demolition of dwelling places of persons accused of crime” Justice Sreedharan said famously.
In the split verdict, while Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed on compliance with the top court safeguards and non-selective enforcement and accountability of officials, he declined to concur with the 2 year restraint and 1-year notice requirement.
In the same judgement, Justice Sreedharan also referred to the alleged theft of donations made for the Ram Temple, saying that remaining unmoved by such an episode represented the “nadir” of India’s integrity.
On custodial death
In a May 2026 ruling, a bench he was part of pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government, state police and the National Human Rights Commission in a 2010 custodial death of a man with 40 percent disability.
The court questioned the police’s claim that the man hung himself with his belt in the jail’s urinal area, which is well within the lock-up arena and in constant vigil of officials.
The court also expressed frustration over its repeated “failed attempts” to secure the videographical evidence, and noted the UP government and the UP Police were being evasive in their response.
It then directed the CBI to get the same evidence and produce it before the court within two months.
“The procedural delay of 16 years in the case has given an opportunity to the police and the State to cover their tracks in a manner that the truth remains obscured. The attempts by this Court to now lay its hands on the videography evidence get obfuscated on account of this delay,” it said.
Coming down heavily on the NHRC, it said, “If this is all that the NHRC was required to do and close the case of custodial death purely on the version given by the police, which is an interested party, without seeking independent evidence from neutral witnesses within the family of the deceased, calls into question the very existence of the NHRC”.
In a separate case, his bench also pulled up the UP government authorities for issuing multiple birth certificates to people, remarking that “prima facie, it’s a mess”.
“It appears that anyone at any point in time can get a date of birth certificate issued with whichever date they want from wherever in the State. In one way, this shows the extent of dishonesty existing at all levels, and how easy it is to get these documents made which can be used as strong prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, even for criminal prosecutions.”
In the case, the bench of justices of Atul Sreedharan and Anish Kumar Gupta in November last year, impeached the Principal Secretary of Department of Medical and Health, which issues birth certificates.
Also in November last year, Justice Sreedharan along with Justice Arun Kumar ordered a stay on the demolition of parts of the Noori Jama Masjid in Fatehpur. The mosque was being demolished by the government authorities in view of the public work of widening the road. Staying the demolition until the next hearing, they listed the matter after two days.
On the legal profession
In July, a bench he was a part of dealt with a case where the court initiated criminal proceedings against two advocates who defrauded the court by including false interest rates into a typed copy of a land acquisition award to get unlawful financial benefit for their clients.
When the accused advocates tried to defend themselves by saying it was a “typographical error” and pleaded for mercy, the court requested the Bar Council of India (BCI) to cancel their licenses.
“It is often said that the profession of advocacy is a noble profession however, a deep introspection is required by the Bar whether anyone other than the members of the Bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore? Citizens approach the Courts through the members of the Bar out of sheer exasperation, desperation and helplessness, not because they want to, but because they have no other option. “
“If the counsels for the Respondents are let off lightly by accepting their apology and an undertaking that they would never repeat it, the same would send a wrong message to the Bar, that sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected and if caught, the court shall be forgiving. Those nurturing such an impression must perish the thought”, said the bench of justices Sreedharan and Kshitij Shailendra.
Medical test for trans people
Before that, in a February 2026 order, a bench led by Justice Sreedharan ruled that passport authorities seeking a trans person to undergo a medical test despite existing identity certificate is a violation of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019.
In a split verdict delivered in April 2026, a bench of justices Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran dealt with the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia’s writ challenging an NHRC directive that initiated an Economic Offences Wing investigation into alleged financial irregularities and recruitment corruption across 558 state-aided madrasas.
The bench stayed the NHRC order saying the agency overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries by changing its recommendatory power into an executive directive, without giving the affected parties a formal hearing first.
Justice Sreedharan criticised the NHRC for ordering an EOW to probe into 558 aided madrasas in UP while remaining silent on critical civil rights issues like mob lynchings.
On the other hand, Justice Vivek Saran, disagreed with making sweeping oral or written strictures against the NHRC without the commission being formally represented or heard in court, leading to a split order regarding the critical remarks.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also read: ‘Concocted story by state’: HC quashes DU grad’s 5-month NSA detention in Noida workers protest case