The Gujarat High Court ruled that even one negative remark or suspicion over a judge’s integrity is enough for compulsory retirement. The bench clarified that such retirement is not a penalty and no show-cause notice is required.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has recently made it clear that judges must live up to the highest standards of honesty and morality, stressing that even a single negative remark or a suspicion about a judge’s integrity can be enough to end their judicial career through compulsory retirement.
A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and LS Pirzada passed this observation while rejecting the plea of JK Acharya, an ad hoc sessions judge who was one among 18 judicial officers compulsorily retired in November 2016.
The bench said:
“A single uncommunicated adverse remark in the entire service record, or a doubtful integrity, is enough to retire a judicial officer compulsorily in the public interest.”
The judges underlined that compulsory retirement cannot be seen as a punishment and therefore the authorities are not required to issue a show-cause notice to the judicial officer concerned.
The order stated:
“The requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice to such a judicial officer is not necessary.”
The bench also emphasised that the decision of the High Court’s full court, which involves the collective opinion of all judges, is based on thorough scrutiny at multiple levels.
The court observed that such decisions are taken on the basis of “subjective satisfaction following detailed scrutiny at multiple levels” and further clarified that judicial review of these orders is very limited and can be done only on “very restricted grounds.”
Acharya had challenged the 2016 decision that saw him and 17 others removed under the policy of the Gujarat High Court to evaluate the service of judges once they complete 50 and 55 years of age.
Officers found to have unsatisfactory performance or doubtful integrity were retired from service. He also challenged the state government and the governor’s implementation of the retirement order.
The bench noted that in many cases, it is not possible to provide exact proof of misconduct or dishonesty. The order mentioned:
“Sometimes it would be very difficult to gather concrete or material evidence to prove doubtful integrity and make it part of the record, and it would be impracticable for the reporting officer or the competent controlling officer preparing the confidential report to provide specific instances of shortfalls supported by evidence.”
The judges further clarified that promotions or salary hikes do not give immunity to a judicial officer if doubts about their integrity arise.
The court said:
“Any promotion or grant of a higher pay-scale/selection grade cannot have any impact on the order of compulsory retirement.”
Reiterating earlier principles of the Supreme Court, the High Court reminded that the position of a judge demands the highest values and standards.
The bench quoted the Supreme Court’s view:
“The office that a judge holds is an office of public trust. A judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values… For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.”
The Gujarat High Court further stressed:
“Any breach of the pristine standards/values as enumerated above will invite scrutiny by the high court, and any Judicial Officer, whose conduct / reputation / behavior is found impinging the same can either attract disciplinary proceedings or compulsory retirement in the public interest, depending upon the extent of the breach.”
Finally, the bench made it clear that decisions related to compulsory retirement of judicial officers are fully within the authority of the High Court. The order concluded:
“In view of settled legal precedent regulating the premature/compulsory retirement of the judicial officers exclusively falls within the domain, supremacy and subjective satisfaction of the High Court.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Shilpa Shetty-Raj Kundra
