Justice Atul Sreedharan sworn in as Judge of Allahabad High Court

On 11-11-2025, Justice Atul Sreedharan, was sworn in as a Judge of Allahabad High Court. He was administered the oath of office Justice Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium on 14-10-2025 modified the transfer order of Justice Sreedharan and recommended his transfer to Allahabad High Court instead of earlier recommendation of transfer to Chhattisgarh High Court. The Collegium notification stated that the decision to modify the transfer recommendation was taken after the Central Government sought reconsideration. On 18-10-2025, the President of India confirmed the recommendation thereby clearing the way for Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Allahabad High Court.

Born in 1966, Justice Atul Sreedharan began his legal career by joining the Chamber of Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate in 1992 at Delhi and assisted him in several Civil and Criminal matters before the Supreme Court, High Court of Delhi and the Trial Court at Delhi.

From 1997 to December 2000 Justice Sreedharan began his independent practise at Delhi. He later Shifted to Indore and began practicing at Madhya Pradesh High Court. Justice Sreedharan was appointed as Central Government Counsel in 2005 and as Central Government Counsel (Senior Panel) in 2010 to appear in cases on behalf of the Union of India till 2013.

Justice Atul Sreedharan was subsequently appointed as Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in April 2016 and Permanent Judge on March 2018. Transferred as a Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in April 2023 and took Oath of Office on May 2023.¹ Justice Sreedharan was again transferred to Madhya Pradesh High Court in March 2025 and then to Allahabad High Court in October 2025².

Notable Judgments

MP High Court takes suo motu action against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for using ‘scurrilous language’ against Col. Sofia Quraishi

While taking suo motu cognizance based on media reports (Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar, Nayi Duniya — all dated 14-05-2025) and video footage circulating on digital platforms regarding a disparaging speech made by a sitting BJP minister Vijay Shah, against Col. Sofia Quraishi, a senior officer of the Indian Army, a Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minster Vijay Shah by the evening of 14-05-2025, under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Furthermore, the directed that the entire order dated 14-05-2025 shall be read as part of para 12 of the FIR registered against the Minister Vijay Shah be read all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating purposes.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy | Madhya Pradesh HC directs state to urgently examine issue of shifting containment site away from habitation

In a writ petition filed for the clean-up and removal of toxic waste from the Union Carbide Factory site in Bhopal, following the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., directed the State to expeditiously examine the issue of shifting the containment site to a place, anywhere in the State, which was in a seismic zone of the lowest level and far away from habitation.

“As we sow, so shall we reap”: MP High Court Criticizes Feudal Mindset in Judiciary, Grants Relief to Illegally Terminated District Judge

In a writ petition filed by a Former District Judge against the rejection of his appeal against his termination after 28 years of blemish-free service, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan* and Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that the Former Judge was terminated only on account of passing judicial orders without an iota of material to establish corruption even on the anvil of preponderance of probability. Accordingly, the Court restored his pensionary benefits and directed that he be given back wages from the date of termination to the date he would have otherwise superannuated, with interest at 7 percent. The Court also directed the State and the High Court to pay a total of Rs 5 Lakhs to the Former Judge as compensation.

J&K High Court issues contempt notice to UT Govt. officials over careless attitude towards Judicial Order’s compliance

In a contempt proceedings arising from the non-compliance of a High Court’s order, a division bench comprising of Atul Sreedharan and Javed Iqbal Wani, JJ., expressed its dissatisfaction with the UT Government’s handling of judicial orders and warned them of firmer actions to ensure compliance. The Court scheduled the hearing on 08-08-2024, with a clear directive for personal appearance by the contemnors. In the instant matter, the present contempt proceedings arising from the non-compliance of a High Court order dated 10-08-2023, directing that Chief Engineers should receive a higher pay scale than Superintending Engineers, following constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The High Court directed the authorities to comply with the order within three months of the order.

J&K and Ladakh HC takes stern note of “copy-paste UAPA arguments” highlighting internal security instead of focusing on specific material against an accused

While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned order rejecting the appellant’s bail application for offences inter alia, under Sections 13(1)B, 18, 20, 23, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA Act), the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan* and Mohammad Yousuf Wani, JJ., took strict note of the “usual stock of copy paste UAPA arguments” put forth by the respondent. The Court pointed out that to be influenced by the often forceful submission of internal security of the State, and to reject a bail application where the State has utterly failed to disclose any material against the accused which could raise a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused as charged by the State, is a sure shot recipe for miscarriage of justice.

Investigating Agency must justify arrest under UAPA; No rule of thumb to determine whether accused is ‘clear and present danger’: J&K and Ladakh HC

While considering the instant appeal, the division bench of Atul Sreedharan* and Mohal Lal, JJ., had to examine two questions of law.

• Whether, section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, where despite the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the absence of a “Need to Arrest” would result in violation of the right to life of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution and if it does, whether the Court can still grant bail on account of the violation of Article 21 even though a prima facie case is made out against the accused?

• Whether, the concept of “Clear and Present Danger” ought to be taken into account by the Courts while deciding a bail application where the bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is applicable?

It was held that the investigating agency, in a case under the UAPA, has the unbridled authority to arrest or not to arrest; however, upon arrest, the investigating agency would have to justify the arrest on the anvil of “clear and present danger” of the accused to the society at large, if enlarged on bail. The existence of prima facie evidence against the accused is to no avail if there is no justification for the arrest based on the doctrine of clear and present danger to the society. If the investigating agency does not satisfy the Court and is unable to justify the arrest the same would result in the violation of the rights of the accused under Part III of the Constitution as outlined in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, and the accused may be enlarged on bail. “To assess whether the accused is a clear and present danger, there can be no rule of thumb and it must be seen in the backdrop of the specific facts and circumstances of each case”.