Is insubordination an integrity issue? In oral remarks, the Supreme Court said it is a question of temperament, and declined to entertain the Allahabad High Court’s challenge, leaving a ‘Doubtful Integrity’ ACR Remark against a woman judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh expunged.
New Delhi: A challenge by the Allahabad High Court to the removal of a “doubtful integrity” remark from a woman judicial officer’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) went no further on Tuesday, November 3, when the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment that had expunged it, after the High Court’s counsel said the matter would not be pressed [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Manju Kumari].
The petition, filed by the High Court on its administrative side, was heard by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The remarks reported below were made orally during the hearing; the Court has not delivered a judgment on the merits of the dispute.
Temperament, not integrity
Justice Bagchi asked whether any of the complaints concerned dishonesty, and drew a line between the two concepts:
“Insubordination is not an integrity issue. Insubordination is a temperament issue.”
“Integrity relates to dishonesty. Insubordination relates to judicial temperament. That is where the Division Bench appears to have drawn the distinction.”
Objecting to the use of such a serious expression without an adequate factual foundation, he said:
“Integrity should not be used so loosely. You should not use an incorrect expression. You should say that this person has a temperament issue.”
The Bench also noted that the ACR form has separate columns for an officer’s behaviour towards lawyers and for performance, which could have been used without questioning her integrity. Her record was satisfactory from 2013 to 2020, it observed, and later reports showed improvement. Justice Bagchi asked: “Does an officer become dishonest for one year and honest in all the other years?”
The officer and the dispute
The dispute concerns the ACR of judicial officer Manju Kumari for 2019-2020, when she was posted in Ghaziabad. The report recorded her integrity as doubtful following complaints about her conduct, her judicial work and her behaviour towards members of the bar.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh expunged the integrity remark on July 10, 2026, finding that the material relied upon did not establish dishonesty or lack of probity. The High Court administration then took that judgment to the Supreme Court.
What the High Court argued
Counsel for the High Court submitted that the officer had repeatedly refused to undertake magisterial work, behaved rudely with advocates and made complaints against senior judicial officers. Several complaints had been received from the bar, it was argued, and three administrative committees had considered her representations before the adverse entry was sustained. Counsel also argued that her lack of sincerity and unwillingness to perform assigned duties were relevant while assessing integrity.
A model employer
Counsel then said the adverse entry had served its purpose by prompting an improvement in the officer’s performance. The Bench replied that the employer should recognise that improvement instead of defending the integrity remark:
“As you rightly said, your warning has had its impact in improving her performance. I think a model employer should leave it at that.”
Justice Bagchi also stressed the need to ensure that the officer was not victimised. Counsel then informed the Bench that the High Court would not press the matter, and the Court declined to entertain the petition, leaving the Division Bench judgment undisturbed.
Why the hearing matters
A “doubtful integrity” entry is among the most damaging remarks a judicial officer can carry. It can affect promotion, confirmation and even continuation in service, and it suggests dishonesty. The Bench’s remarks make the point that complaints about rudeness, refusal of assignments or friction with the bar, however serious, go to temperament and conduct, and should be recorded under those heads, not as a finding on integrity.
The outcome leaves in place the Allahabad High Court Division Bench’s view that an integrity remark must rest on material showing dishonesty or lack of probity. It also carries a message for High Courts acting as administrators of the district judiciary: when a warning has produced improvement, a model employer should let it rest.
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Manju Kumari
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 3, 2026
Impugned judgment: Allahabad High Court (Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh), July 10, 2026