The Supreme Court on Friday called for the reinstatement of two women judges who were terminated from service following adverse reports by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and government [In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (JR. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service]
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh noted that one of judges, during the period of assessment, had got married, contracted COVID-19, had a miscarriage, and her brother was diagnosed with cancer. It went on to hold,
“The High Court report does not show consistent poor performance of judges and it speaks otherwise. There are inherent contradictions in the ACRs…We have held that opportunity had to be given before termination. Thus, termination is punitive, arbitrary and illegal.”
“Even on perusal of report given by the High Court in a sealed cover, it does not persuade us to take a different view. We hold that the termination was in the form of punishment. The termination was stigmatic in nature. These could not have been the basis of the impugned termination. Thus orders of full court, administrative report and the government order are set aside,” the bench added.
While setting aside the termination orders, the Court held,
“They are eligible to rejoin and date of probation shall be when their juniors were confirmed. Monetary benefits of the said period shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits etc and they need to be taken back to service within 15 days in terms of seniority.”
Justice Nagarathna also said that a conducive environment must be created for women judges in India to flourish
“It is important to understand their entry, then their retention in numbers and advancement to senior echelons of judiciary. Greater representation of women in judiciary will increase the quality of justice being rendered and it also promotes gender equality in broader ways. Then freedom from discrimination for women during pregnancy is a precious right. When there is birth, there is sense of fulfillment, whereas miscarriage has serious effect son mental health of women…even leads to suicide and recurring miscarriages have severe effects on health…It is not enough to find comfort in growing number of women judicial officers unless we secure a comfortable atmosphere for them to work in.”
Frowning upon how the terminated judges were singled out, the Court said,
“We empathise with them, they lost money, finances and gave them anxiety. You must talk to women judicial officers. They take medicines to kill pain on certain days of the month so that they can sit morning till night in court. You must show sensitivity.”
The judgment was delivered in the suo motu case concerning the dismissal of six women civil judges in Madhya Pradesh.
Though four of them were reinstated following the top court’s intervention in September last year, the two remaining judges – Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary – were not reinstated. These judges had joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services in 2018 and 2017 respectively.
The Supreme Court had in January last year taken suo motu cognisance of the termination of the six judges by the Madhya Pradesh government in June 2023.
The termination orders were passed by the law department following an administrative committee and a full court meeting of High Court judges, which found their performance during the probation period unsatisfactory.
In a February 2024 hearing, the top court had orally asked the High Court whether it was willing to reconsider its decision. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s full court had refused to revoke termination orders against Sharma and Chaudhary, recording adverse remarks against them in a sealed cover submitted to the Supreme Court. Both officers were terminated in 2023.
The Supreme Court in July again asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take a call on the representations of the affected judges afresh, within a month.
During a previous hearing, Justice Nagarathna had observed,
“I wish men had menstruation, then only they would understand…It is easy to say case dismissed and go home. If we are hearing this matter at length, can lawyers say we are slow? Particularly women, if they are suffering physically and mentally; do not say they are slow and terminate them.”
Appearing for the High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg had argued that Sharma’s performance dropped from “very good” and “good” ratings in 2019-20 to “average” and “poor” in subsequent years.
In 2022, Sharma had about 1,500 pending cases with disposal rate below 200. She earned 44.16 units for civil cases and 269 units for criminal cases.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners and Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal assisted the Court on substantive submissions.
