In India, it has become common for officials who take fair and principled stands, especially when such actions cause discomfort within the ruling class, to face unjust transfers or to be denied well-deserved promotions. Many of these aggrieved officials approach the courts to challenge such injustices. The judiciary, in several instances, has taken firm positions to uphold the dignity of both the Constitution and the civil services. However, in recent times, the reality in the country has been that judges who courageously uphold justice and fairness often become targets themselves. There have been several such examples in recent years ranging from the still-unanswered death of Judge Loya to the denial of appointment to Justice Akil Kureshi. It would deeply sadden and shame every Indian who believes in justice and loves the nation, if one were to examine how the wider judicial community has responded when fellow judges faced injustice for standing by the Constitution and truth. A case in point is that of Justice Muralidhar of the Delhi High court: he was transferred following the government's pressure after he criticised the Delhi Police in 2020 for not taking action against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, and Parvesh Verma who had allegedly delivered hate speeches that incited the Delhi riots. Although the transfer could not be carried out immediately because two senior Supreme Court judges opposed the move, the situation changed once both of them retired. The collegium later gave in to the Centre’s request, resulting in Justice Muralidhar’s transfer.
Now, once again, the central government appears to have turned against another judge for the “offence” of upholding patriotism and a sense of justice. The central government reportedly moved to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Madhya Pradesh High Court following his directive to register a case against Madhya Pradesh minister and BJP leader Vijay Shah who faced the charge of making hate-filled remarks calling Army officer Colonel Sophia Qureshi the “sister of terrorists” following her briefing to the media on India’s military action against Pakistan in retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack. Justice Sreedharan, a judge from Kerala, was said to have faced this transfer in a manner that would deprive him of further promotion opportunities. The Supreme Court collegium, reportedly yielding to government pressure, approved his transfer. In August, the collegium had recommended that Justice Sreedharan be moved to the Chhattisgarh High Court. If it were implemented, he would have been second in seniority there, just like in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. After the Centre requested a review of the earlier decision, the Supreme Court collegium revised its recommendation, proposing Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer to the Allahabad High Court instead of Chhattisgarh. In the new posting, his rank would slip to seven, which is a clear relegation in status. In essence, this change is viewed as a punishment for questioning the “authority” of a BJP leader who had made a hate remark.
Justice Atul Sreedharan has been known throughout his judicial career for his impartiality and courage. Formerly a judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, he had voluntarily sought a transfer when his daughter began practising law there, in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest and to maintain judicial integrity. His next posting was at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, where he took a humane approach while dealing with preventive detention cases. He ensured strict judicial scrutiny and quashed several police detentions made under the Public Safety Act, reaffirming his reputation as a fair judge. During his second tenure at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Atul Sreedharan, along with Justice Anuradha Shukla, initiated suo motu proceedings against BJP minister Vijay Shah after the state police hesitated to act. The division bench observed that “divisive remarks directed at the nation’s armed forces are dangerous and unacceptable.” The message being conveyed by the central government is that those who call for riots and hate speech will remain unpunished and safe, and that those who raise a finger against them, even if it is the judges, will not be tolerated. By yielding to government pressure, the Supreme Court collegium, as critics argue, has not only compromised the dignity of the judiciary but also inflicted damage on the moral foundation of India’s democracy itself. Let it be remembered that if a judge who upholds national interest, secular values, and the dignity of the Constitution is no longer safe, it signifies that the very sense of justice in the country itself is in peril.