Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir: “A fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist or a separatist,” said Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Jammu & Kashmir (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 “hard core 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 national security, nationalism, allegiance to Pakistan, radical Islam, and secession of J&K from India, rather than focusing on the facts of the case.
“Exemplary costs should be imposed,” said Justice Sreedharan, in September 2024, while accusing the authorities of playing “hide and seek” with court orders regarding contractor payments. He added that the authority’s inability to pay “legitimate dues” created questions over “the lofty claims of the economic prowess of the country”.
These four instances were among eight landmark judgments that Justice Sreedharan issued over the two years that he served with the J&K High Court.
On 13 March 2025, 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 the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after the Supreme Court Collegium, on 6 March 2025, recommended his repatriation to the court where he was elevated to high court justice in 2016.
The transfer of Justice Sreedharan came 26 days before the scheduled retirement of current Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan on 9 April 2025.
Next in line to be chief justice: Justice Sreedharan.
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 2025, excluding Justice Sreedharan, only 14 positions were filled.
The retirement of the present chief justice and one more justice in April 2025 will reduce this number to 12, less than half of the sanctioned number of judges.
Vocal Against Illegal Detentions
Sreedharan, during his tenure in J&K, was vocal in questioning illegal detentions. He focussed on individual liberty, particularly in cases of preventive detention under the PSA and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (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.
He said that being booked under the UAPA or PSA should not automatically suggest guilt, and every case should be subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny.
Justice Sreedharan's observations were often seen as a check on governmental overreach.
His observations reflected his stance on free speech, as he scrutinised the misuse of sedition and UAPA charges against journalists and activists.
In the judgments we analysed (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), Justice Sreedharan ensured that individual liberty was not ordinarily curtailed, and judgments 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 judgment 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 (here, here, here and here), accessed by Article 14, 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—covered by Article 14 here, here, here and here—a division bench led by Atul 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.”
Shah was facing terrorism charges for publishing, in November 2011, an alleged “seditious” and “highly provocative” article ‘The shackles of slavery will break’ in his magazine, The Kashmir Walla. The magazine’s website was blocked in August 2023.
Authorities claimed the article led to an increase in terrorism and unlawful activities across J&K.
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.
Fundamentalist ≠ Extremist, Separatist
In another landmark judgement 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 “hard core fundamentalist” who volunteered to work for TRF (The Resistance Front), banned in January 2023 for being an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, designated as a terrorist group under the UAPA.
Quashing the detention order, the court said that the use of the phrase “fundamentalist ideology” by the district magistrate did not necessarily mean that the detenue possessed an “extremist or separatist” ideology.
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”.
‘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 prosecution argued that since the offence is heinous, it was against the interest of the nation to let the accused out on bail, and that if that happened, he or she would interfere with the judicial process, may influence witnesses, and would repeat the offences, and that the release would be counterproductive to the “unity and integrity” of India.
The court noted that 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 to the material presented to the court, 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 900,000 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 of filing of the present LPA knowing fully well that there is no reasonable cause at all.”
In his judgement, Justice Sreedharan, referring to the payment delays, said, “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) amount to Rs 20.97 lacs (sic), which denigrates and puts to doubt the lofty claims of the economic prowess of the country.”
On 12 March 2025, in a contempt petition, a division bench of Justices Atul 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 2025, but Justice Sreedharan’s transfer was announced just a day before.
A ‘Kind-Hearted & Dedicated Jurist’
Justice Sreedharan had been transferred from Madhya Pradesh to J&K in April 2023, at his own request, citing personal reasons, as his daughter had started practicing law in Madhya Pradesh.
On 20 March 2025, a full court reference was held at the high court wing in Jammu, where Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan praised Justice Sreedharan as a “kind-hearted and dedicated jurist”. He highlighted Justice Sreedharan's commitment to justice, his deep legal understanding and landmark judgements as valuable contributions to the judiciary.
Monika Kohli, senior additional advocate general, mentioned Justice Sreedharan’s “dedication and commitment towards his judicial responsibilities” and said his two-year tenure at the court had been notable for a “keen sense of justice and a commitment towards upholding the rule of law”.
Nirmal Kotwal, president of the J&K High Court Bar Association, Jammu, complimented Justice Sreedharan for his “dedication and commitment” on judicial and administrative matters and spoke of his popularity among lawyers for showing them respect.
(Mubashir Naik is a practice advocate and legal researcher, and Irshad Hussain is a freelance journalist. Both are based in Jammu and Kashmir.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.