Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh stated that case disposal rates should not be used as a measure when judges are suffering both mentally and physically.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (3rd Nov) for the way it dismissed women civil judges and refused to reinstate some of them.
Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh stated that case disposal rates should not be used as a measure when judges are suffering both mentally and physically.
Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“It’s easy to say ‘dismissed-dismissed’ and move on. We are taking the time to hear this matter; can lawyers call us slow? If women are suffering physically and mentally, they should not be dismissed based on performance. There should be the same criteria for male and female judges, and we will see what happens. How can case disposal targets be set for the district judiciary?”
The matter will be revisited on December 12.
BRIEF FACTS
The Supreme Court earlier in January taken suo motu cognizance of the termination of six judges by the Madhya Pradesh government in June 2023, after their performance was deemed unsatisfactory during the probation period by a committee of the High Court judges.
In February, the Supreme Court had asked the High Court if it was willing to reconsider its decision. In July, the Court again instructed the High Court to reconsider the affected judges’ appeals within a month.
The full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court revisited its earlier decisions on August 1 and resolved to reinstate four judicial officers—Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—subject to certain conditions.
However, regarding two other officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, the earlier resolutions remain unchanged, with the court deciding to place adverse remarks and related materials against them in a sealed cover for further review.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the terminated officers, inquired if any new evidence had emerged that could be addressed. The bench took note of her query and ordered that a copy of the sealed cover be shared with the amicus curiae, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal.
The amicus curiae was instructed to inform the court of any new material without sharing the report with anyone else, and to report on this matter in the next hearing on December 3. The court clarified that the report would not be disclosed to the counsel of the terminated officers at this time.
While acknowledging the terminations, the bench issued notices to both the high court registry and the judicial officers who had not yet approached the court to challenge their dismissal.
The officers were terminated despite the fact that their work could not be quantitatively assessed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as noted by the court. The officers, along with three other women, had been appointed to the judicial services in Madhya Pradesh but faced termination mainly due to concerns about their performance during their probation period.
The termination orders were issued by the state law department in June 2023 after an administrative committee and a full court meeting deemed their performance “unsatisfactory.”
One of the former officers, represented by advocate Charu Mathur, filed an impleadment application, claiming that her termination violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. She argued that despite an unblemished four-year service record and no adverse remarks, she was terminated without due process of law.
The officer also contended that her maternity and child care leave, if considered in the performance assessment, would make her termination an unjust act. She emphasized that maternity leave is a fundamental right, and evaluating her performance during probation based on leave taken for maternity and child care was a gross violation of her rights.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
