In Rare Move, Collegium Alters Judge's Transfer to Allahabad HC After Centre Seeks Reconsideration

NEW DELHI – In a significant development that underscores the evolving dynamic between India's judiciary and executive, the Supreme Court Collegium has modified its earlier recommendation for the transfer of a High Court judge following a request for reconsideration by the Central Government. The Collegium, in a meeting on October 14, 2025, resolved to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, altering its initial proposal to move him to the Chhattisgarh High Court.

This decision, noted by court observers as a rare instance of the Collegium publicly amending its stance based on government feedback, brings into focus the intricate and often opaque process of judicial transfers governed by the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).

The official statement from the Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, was succinct but carried significant weight within legal circles. "The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 14th October, 2025, on reconsideration sought by the Government, resolved to recommend that Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan, Judge, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad instead of the High Court of Chhattisgarh," the statement read.

This development is part of a broader transfer exercise initiated in August 2025, which saw the Collegium recommend the transfer of 14 High Court judges across the country, ostensibly to ensure a balanced distribution of judicial strength and to fortify the administration of justice nationwide.

Background: The Circuitous Journey of Justice Sreedharan

The judicial career of Justice Atul Sreedharan, who was elevated to the bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2016, has been particularly noteworthy for its multiple transfers. His case provides a compelling lens through which to examine the personal and professional considerations that factor into such administrative decisions.

In 2023, Justice Sreedharan proactively sought a transfer out of his parent High Court, a move driven by a commitment to upholding judicial propriety. As per the sources, he requested the transfer to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh because his daughter had commenced her legal practice in Madhya Pradesh. This self-initiated transfer was aimed at preempting any potential perception of a conflict of interest, a laudable step that reinforces the high ethical standards expected of the judiciary.

After a tenure in the J&K&L High Court, he was repatriated to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in March 2025. The circumstances leading to his return were followed just a few months later by the August 2025 recommendation from the Collegium for his transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court. The latest modification now redirects him to the Allahabad High Court, one of the country's largest and most historically significant judicial institutions, with a sanctioned strength of 160 judges.

The Collegium, the Centre, and the Reconsideration Clause

The transfer and appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India are governed by the Collegium system, a mechanism established through a series of Supreme Court judgments, most notably the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998) . This system, comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, holds primacy in judicial appointments and transfers.

However, the process is not entirely unilateral. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the document that guides the process, provides a role for the executive. The Central Government, upon receiving a recommendation from the Collegium, can request a reconsideration, providing specific reasons for its objection or concern.

While the Collegium has the power to reiterate its recommendation, which then becomes binding on the government, it can also choose to modify or withdraw it. The current instance involving Justice Sreedharan falls into the latter category. The decision to accept the government's request and propose an alternative posting highlights a degree of collaborative dialogue, a facet of the Collegium's functioning that is often debated.

Legal experts suggest that the government's reasons for seeking reconsideration could range from administrative needs of the proposed High Courts, intelligence inputs, or other factors related to the suitability of the transfer. The lack of transparency regarding the specific reasons cited by the Centre in this case remains a point of contention for proponents of greater openness in the judicial appointments process.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

This event reignites the long-standing debate on judicial independence versus executive accountability. Critics of the Collegium system argue that it is an opaque "judges-appointing-judges" mechanism, lacking transparency and external oversight. They might view this modification as a sign of executive influence on what should be an independent judicial administrative matter.

Conversely, proponents argue that the system is a bulwark for judicial independence, protecting it from political interference. From this perspective, the Collegium's willingness to consider the executive's input and modify its recommendation demonstrates flexibility and a pragmatic approach to administration, rather than a capitulation. It can be interpreted as the system working as intended, with the executive and judiciary engaging in a consultative process to arrive at the best administrative outcome.

The transfer of judges is constitutionally provided for under Article 222 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such transfers are to be made only in the "public interest" and for the "better administration of justice," and not as a punitive measure. The decision to change Justice Sreedharan's destination from Chhattisgarh to Allahabad would, therefore, be predicated on the Collegium's assessment of where his services would best serve these objectives, taking into account the Centre's input.

What Lies Ahead

With the Collegium's revised recommendation, the procedural file will return to the Central Government for the issuance of a formal notification. Typically, this process is completed within a few weeks, after which Justice Sreedharan will assume his new role at the Allahabad High Court.

The current Collegium, headed by CJI B.R. Gavai—who is serving a six-month tenure until his retirement on November 23, 2025—has been actively managing judicial appointments and transfers to address vacancies and streamline court functioning. This decision concerning Justice Sreedharan will be seen as a key part of its legacy, reflecting a nuanced approach to navigating the delicate balance of power between India's highest judicial and executive bodies. For legal professionals and court watchers, it serves as a crucial reminder of the complex interplay of constitutional principles, administrative exigencies, and institutional dialogue that shapes the Indian judiciary.