The judge who upheld liberty in the line of fire

"A fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist or a separatist,” observed Justice Atul Sreedharan of the (J&K) and Ladakh High Court in July 2023, while hearing a case under the Public Safety Act (PSA) 1978, against a Muslim man accused by the police of being a “hardcore fundamentalist”.

In July 2024, he fined government officials Rs 10,000 for issuing an “unjustifiable” preventive detention order in another case under the PSA, a law that does not allow bail for up to two years. In April 2024, Justice Sreedharan accused the government of trying to “psychologically overawe” courts by claiming , nationalism, allegiance to Pakistan, radical Islam and secession of J&K from India, rather than focusing on the facts of the case.

These four instances were among eight landmark judgements that Justice Sreedharan delivered over his two years at the J&K High Court.

On 13 March, President Droupadi Murmu, under Article 222(1) of the Constitution of India, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, ordered the transfer of Justice Sreedharan to Madhya Pradesh High Court, after the Supreme Court Collegium on 6 March recommended his repatriation to the court where he was elevated to high court justice in 2016.

The transfer came 26 days before the scheduled retirement of current J&K and Ladakh High Court chief justice Tashi Rabstan on 9 April. Justice Sreedharan was next in line to be the chief justice.

His transfer comes four months after the Union ministry of law and justice increased the bench strength of the J&K and Ladakh High Court from 17 to 25 judges in November 2024. As of 25 March, excluding Justice Sreedharan, only 14 positions are occupied.

The retirement of the present chief justice and one more justice in April will reduce this number to 12, less than half the sanctioned number of judges.

Vocal against illegal detentions

Sreedharan, during his tenure in J&K, was vocal in questioning illegal detentions. He focused on individual liberty, particularly in cases of preventive detention under the PSA and (UAPA) 2019. In several cases, Justice Sreedharan questioned what he saw as the arbitrary use of the PSA and UAPA, ensuring that law enforcement agencies did not overstep their authority.

Justice Sreedharan’s observations were often seen as a check on government overreach and reflected his stance on free speech, as he scrutinised the misuse of and UAPA charges against journalists and activists. He ensured that individual liberty was not ordinarily curtailed, and judgements and orders passed by the high court were obeyed; in so doing, holding government officials to account.

Quashed detention orders

On 9 July 2024, in the landmark judgement in the case of Surjeet Singh alias Sonu vs Union Territory of J&K, he imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the district magistrate of Jammu for issuing an “unjustifiable” preventive detention order under the PSA.

Justice Sreedharan quashed four such detention orders where he ruled the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence. In November 2023, while granting bail to Fahad Shah, who had spent 21 months in jail accused of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act under the UAPA, a division bench led by Sreedharan ruled, “There is no material to suggest that the article has any content that provokes people to take to arms and resort to violence.”

The division bench not only granted Shah bail but quashed the charges under section 18 of the UAPA, along with sections 121 and 153B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The government challenged the decision of the bench in the Supreme Court which, in October 2024, upheld the order but directed it not be used as legal precedent.

A fundamentalist may not be a separatist

In another landmark judgment in August 2023, while hearing a petition to quash a PSA case against a 22-year-old man named Shahbaz Ahmad Palla, Justice Sreedharan ruled that “a fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist or a separatist”.

Officials accused Palla of being a “hardcore fundamentalist” who volunteered to work for TRF (The Resistance Front), banned in January 2023 for being an offshoot of the , designated as a terrorist group under the UAPA. Quashing the detention order, the court held that “a Muslim who is a fundamentalist is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and steadfastly pursues the same”.

Criticised ‘copy paste’ arguments

On 19 April 2024, Justice Sreedharan, in a bail application for Khursheed Ahmad Lone, who was accused of collecting money to be used to influence people to wage war against India, criticised the government for relying on “copy-paste” arguments to oppose bail to persons charged with offences under the UAPA, often without providing any evidence of guilt. Lone, a resident of Anantnag, south Kashmir, was arrested in December 2022.

The court noted that in every UAPA case, the main aim of the government’s arguments was to try to “psychologically overawe” the court by quoting concerns that included national security, nationalism, allegiance to Pakistan, radical Islam, Islamists and Islamism, and secession of J&K from India. Justice Sreedharan acknowledged these concerns but said there should be supplementary submissions, meaning all these accusations required evidence.

Held authorities accountable

Justice Sreedharan made critical observations in cases involving land disputes and administrative decisions, ensuring government accountability. In August 2024, in a criminal contempt of court proceeding, a bench led by Justice Sreedharan directed the district magistrate of Ganderbal, Shyambir Singh — son-in-law of former Union minister and BJP leader Prahlad Singh Patel — to tender a written apology to the chief judicial magistrate’s court in Ganderbal for acting in “a revengeful manner” following a ruling to attach the deputy commissioner’s salary for ignoring previous court orders.

On 4 September 2024, a bench led by Justice Sreedharan in a letters patent appeal (LPA) — an appeal before the division bench against the order of a single judge — filed by the government in the case Union Territory of JK & Ors. vs Mohammad Afzal Reshi, fined the government Rs 9 lakh for ‘playing hide and seek’ with court orders regarding contractor payments. Ruling that ‘exemplary costs should be imposed’, the bench further held, "This cost shall be recovered from the salary of the officer who initiated this misadventure […] knowing fully well that there is no reasonable cause at all.”

In his judgement, Justice Sreedharan, referring to the payment delays, noted, "It shocks the conscience that we tout ourselves as fifth largest economy in the world, aspiring to be the third largest soon, but do not have funds to pay the legitimate dues of the respondent (contractor) amounting to Rs 20.97 lakh, which denigrates and puts to doubt the lofty claims of the economic prowess of the country."

On 12 March, in a contempt petition, a division bench of Justices Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta warned the minister of public works for “creating hurdles in the compliance” of court orders.

The next hearing in the case was fixed for 14 March, but Justice Sreedharan’s transfer was announced just a day before.

A of this piece first appeared in Article-14.com