The Supreme Court reinstated MP judge Nirbhay Singh Suliya, emphasizing that fear of disciplinary action should not deter lower court judges from granting bail. The judgment reinforces judicial independence and safeguards honest judicial officers from baseless allegations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment reinforcing judicial independence, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the dismissal of Madhya Pradesh judicial officer Nirbhay Singh Suliya, holding that mere errors of judgment or incorrect judicial orders cannot form the basis for disciplinary proceedings against judges.
A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed the civil appeal filed by Suliya and directed that he be deemed to have continued in service until superannuation, with full back wages, consequential benefits, and 6% interest.
Background of the Case
Nirbhay Singh Suliya joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service in 1987, was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in 2003, and had completed 27 years of unblemished service.
While posted at Khargone (2011–12), a complaint was sent to the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court alleging corruption in the grant of bail under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
The allegations centered on:
- Grant of bail in four Excise Act cases without expressly referring to Section 59-A, which prescribes “twin conditions” for bail.
- An alleged double standard in granting bail selectively while rejecting others.
Based on departmental proceedings, Suliya was removed from service in 2014. His appeal and writ petition were later dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court made strong and far-reaching observations on the vulnerability of trial court judges.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing the judgment, held:
“It should be ensured that only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer is not put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution.”
The Court clarified that disciplinary action cannot rest solely on judicial orders, unless supported by evidence of:
- Corruption
- Extraneous considerations
- Mala fides or lack of good faith
Mere failure to cite a statutory provision does not amount to misconduct.
ALSO READ: Corrupt Judge | “Post Comes With Great Responsibility”: HC Upholds Dismissal of an ADJ
The Supreme Court found the inquiry against Suliya to be perverse and unsustainable, noting that:
- The complainant and stenographer were never examined
- The public prosecutor testified that the bail orders were legally sound
- None of the bail orders was challenged by the State
- The second charge relating to a serious criminal case was not proved
The Court concluded that no reasonable person could have arrived at the findings of guilt based on the material on record.
The Bench strongly criticized the growing trend of:
- Frivolous and anonymous complaints
- Intimidatory tactics by disgruntled litigants
- Unfounded allegations engineered by members of the Bar
“A fearless Judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests.”
The Court warned that false complaints against judges may attract:
- Contempt of court proceedings
- Disciplinary action by Bar Councils against errant advocates
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, in his concurring opinion, highlighted a critical systemic issue:
“Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant to exercise discretion in granting bail.”
The Court observed that fear of administrative action has led to:
- Reluctance among trial judges to grant bail
- Increased burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala HC’s Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ordered:
- Removal order and High Court judgment set aside
- Suliya to be treated as in service till retirement
- Full back wages with 6% interest to be paid within 8 weeks
- Judgment to be circulated to all High Courts through their Registrar Generals
Case Title:
NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2026
READ JUDGMENT