Today, On 17th December, The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the plea challenging the dismissal of two women judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The officers argued that their removal was not a simple termination based on performance but a punitive action influenced by complaints and evidence. They contended that the process lacked fairness and violated principles of natural justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the case concerning the dismissal of two female judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Six judicial officers terminated at the same time. Following the Court’s instruction, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court agreed to reinstate four of the female officers, while the remaining two seek remedies for their dismissals.
The case heard by bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh, who considered arguments from Senior Counsel Indira Jaising, representing Aditi, and R. Basant, representing Sarita. Jaising argued for Aditi’s reinstatement with back wages and confirmation in her role.
Notably, both women were on probation at the time of their termination. In Sarita’s case, Basant advocated for her reinstatement alongside the other four officers, while leaving the decision on back wages to the Court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, represented by AOR Arjun Garg, contends that the two female officers do not possess an indefeasible right to continued employment until confirmed. He asserted that their dismissals were routine and based on various factors, including overall performance and conduct. Garg further argued that for confirmed employees, the “scope of judicial interference” is broader than for those on probation.
He also noted that only in cases of “stigmatized” removal can the officers claim punitive termination. Furthermore, he emphasized that probationary officers cannot invoke the principles of natural justice regarding the right to be heard. He maintained that both terminations are straightforward.
Throughout the proceedings, the Court has insisted that dismissals should not be arbitrary.
Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“If it’s about overall performance, conduct, and suitability, then it is one thing. But if there are complaints and other evidence, then it is not a termination simpliciter; it becomes punitive. That’s their argument.”
The case involves the dismissal of two female judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. These officers, who were part of the lower judiciary, contested their dismissals, arguing that the actions taken against them were unjust and did not follow proper procedures. Their terminations followed a disciplinary inquiry, the results of which they have challenged.
The judicial officers contended that the High Court’s decision infringed upon principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. They claimed that the inquiry was flawed and that their dismissals were excessive in relation to the allegations made against them. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, where the officers sought relief by disputing the validity of the High Court’s ruling and requesting reinstatement.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment, indicating that it will announce its decision at a later date. This case raises important issues regarding judicial accountability, the fairness of disciplinary processes, and the treatment of judicial officers within the legal framework.