Justice Atul Sridharan: Here's a look at his recent orders and judgments

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended transfer of Madhya Pradesh High Court judge Justice Atul Sreedharan to the Allahabad High Court on October 14, 2025. The decision was taken after the Center sought reconsideration of Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court. (Photo: Madhya Pradesh High Court website)

Justice Sreedharan was transferred to the MP High Court on March 14 earlier this year when he was to become the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. His transfer attracted attention because he had criticized the government and made decisions that were seen as upholding individual freedoms and pushing back against illegal detention. However, this is not the first time that Justice Sridharan has delivered judgments that have caught public attention. Here’s a look at some of their recent decisions: (Photo: Agencies)

Colonel Sofia Qureshi: Soon after his return to the MP High Court, Justice Sreedharan was part of the bench that initiated suo motu action against Madhya Pradesh Cabinet Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his alleged derogatory remarks made on Indian Army officer Colonel Sophia Qureshi. The court had directed the state police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against the minister for his comments. (PTI photo)

MP Paramedical College Scam: Justice Sreedharan was part of the division bench which on July 11 had decided to take suo motu cognizance of violations of rules in granting recognition to paramedical colleges in the state. However, on August 27, the case was adjourned indefinitely saying that perjury proceedings could not be initiated at this stage as the proceedings had been stayed by the Supreme Court. (Photo: Shutterstock)

ALSO READ Case registered against Keralas for 'cheating' to Kuwait Bank

Caste Identity and Pride: A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Pradeep Mittal took suo motu cognizance of a video uploaded by YouTube channels on October 14, which showed a man allegedly belonging to the OBC community in Madhya Pradesh sitting in a temple and asking a man to wash his feet and then drink water. The bench expressed surprise, “Each caste has become vocal and hyper-conscious of its caste identity and leaves no stone unturned in displaying its pride in belonging to a particular caste. This is giving rise to many instances of caste violence. In most of the cases the victims are the least literate and economically poorest.” The court ordered the Damoh police and administration to immediately take action under the NSA (apart from the FIR) against all those who are seen in the video and whose identity can be ascertained, and those who were around the victim in the temple and forcing him to commit the act, before this “evil spirit of caste bitterness and discrimination reaches its peak.” (Photo: Agencies)

Order against single judge bench of MP HC: A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Pradeep Mittal took suo motu cognizance of an order of its single-judge bench on September 24, directing an investigation against a judicial officer for allegedly favoring an accused in a ₹25 lakh land acquisition embezzlement case. The bench criticized the order, calling it “based on speculation” and “undesirable”, and said it wrongly attributed “ulterior motives” to the additional sessions judge. The bench said such comments violate the Supreme Court’s consistent directions to avoid making such comments in judicial orders. (Image: agencies)

ALSO READ 11 years of PM Jan Dhan: Nagpur beneficiaries count benefits like zero balance; thank govt

Action against judicial officer: A division bench of Justices Atul Sridharan and Amit Seth ruled on July 26 that a complainant has no legal right to seek action against a judicial officer for decisions taken in his judicial capacity. While imposing a fine of ₹50,000 on a plaintiff who alleged misconduct by Judicial Magistrate First Class Khalid Tanveer after his conviction under Section 332 of the IPC, the court clarified that only the High Court can take cognizance of such cases under Article 227. The bench said that a complainant merely informs the court, and further action depends entirely on the high court. (Image: agencies)

Awantipora massacre 2012: Before his transfer to the MP High Court, Justice Atul Sridharan was part of the division bench in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, along with Justice Rajesh Sekhri, that on March 27 acquitted four persons in the case citing inadmissible confessions, procedural lapses and weak circumstantial evidence. The court noted serious discrepancies, including the FIR lodged before the victim’s body was found and the confession allegedly made under duress. The bench questioned how the informant knew the details of the murder before the body was found and criticized the police for failing to investigate the credibility and possible involvement of the informant. (Image: agencies)