Madhya Pradesh High Court strongly criticised the rigid judicial hierarchy, saying District Judges are treated like ‘Shudras’ and ‘Les Misérables’, while High Court Judges enjoy privileges like ‘Savarnas’, exposing deep-rooted inequality in the system.
A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court criticized the hierarchical dynamics within the judicial system, comparing the relationship between the High Court and the District Judiciary to a caste system.
The judges noted that lower court judges are treated as “shudras” and “les misérables,” while High Court judges operate with the entitlement of “savarnas.”
The term “les misérables,” meaning “the miserable ones” in English, is often associated with the poor and marginalized, as popularized by Victor Hugo in his famous novel.
Justices Atul Sreedharan and Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, On July 14, made these comments while overturning the dismissal of former Additional District and Sessions Judge Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi, who was terminated in 2014 after issuing differing bail orders in cases related to the Vyapam scandal.
The court deemed that he had suffered “gross injustice” and ordered the reinstatement of his pension benefits. Additionally, it imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the state for the hardships he and his family endured and the societal humiliation he faced, despite no evidence of corruption.
The judges elaborated on the entrenched hierarchy in the judiciary, stating,
“The relationship between District Judiciary and the High Court in the state is not based on mutual respect for each other, but one where a sense of fear and inferiority is consciously instilled by one on the subconscious of the other. At a subliminal level, the penumbra of the caste system manifests in the judicial structure in this state where those in the High Court are the savarnas and the shudras are the les misérables of the District Judiciary.”
They characterized the interaction between High Court and District judges as one reminiscent of a feudal system.
The Bench continued,
“The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf.”
They remarked on the behavior of District judges towards their High Court counterparts, noting that their body language often suggests a sense of subservience, making them appear as “the only identifiable species of invertebrate mammals.”
The judges highlighted that it is common for District judges to attend to High Court judges in a manner that perpetuates a colonial mindset of entitlement.
Furthermore, they pointed out that judges from the District Judiciary working at the High Court registry are rarely offered seats by High Court judges, and even when they are, they show hesitation to sit in their presence.
The court stated that the “subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary is complete and irreversible, so it seems.” It emphasized that the intimidating posture of the High Court, which is quick to criticize the District Judiciary for minor errors, keeps lower court judges in a constant state of fear.
The judges acknowledged the understandable nature of this fear, considering the personal stakes involved: families, children’s education, medical expenses for parents, and the need to secure a stable home.
The abrupt termination of service can leave a District judge and their family without income and facing societal stigma.
The court argued that a District Judiciary operating under such fear cannot deliver justice effectively, stating,
“All this adds up to the passive subjugation of the District Judiciary, leaving it psychologically emaciated, which ultimately reflects in their judicial work where bails are not granted in even the most deserving cases, convictions are recorded in the absence of evidence… All this in the name of saving their job, for which the Petitioner in this case suffered, for thinking and doing differently.”