The Supreme Court expressed concern over a growing trend of judges issuing multiple orders just before retirement, questioning judicial discipline. Calling it an unfortunate trend, the Court likened last-minute orders to a batter hitting sixes in final over.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court voiced its concern regarding the growing trend of judges issuing numerous orders just before their retirement, likening it to a batter hitting sixes in the final overs of a match.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant was reviewing a plea from a principal and district judge from Madhya Pradesh, who challenged the high court’s full court decision to suspend him just 10 days prior to his retirement, reportedly due to some contentious judicial orders.
The bench, which included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, remarked,
“Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,”
Chief Justice Kant highlighted that there is an increasing pattern of judges issuing multiple orders shortly before their retirement.
Also Read: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
The Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, whose retirement was scheduled for November 30, was suspended on November 19 over two judicial orders attributed to him.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the officer, pointed out that he had a flawless service history with consistently high annual performance ratings. Sanghi contested the legality of the suspension, arguing that judicial officers shouldn’t face disciplinary action solely for issuing judicial orders.
He inquired,
“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by the higher judiciary?”
The bench concurred in principle, stating that typically, disciplinary action cannot be initiated against a judicial officer for making erroneous decisions.
The Chief Justice questioned, drawing a line between judicial mistakes and misconduct,
“He cannot be suspended for this. But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?”
Additionally, the Chief Justice noted that on November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to extend the retirement age for judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. Consequently, this judicial officer is now set to retire on November 30, 2026.
He also mentioned that the officer was not aware of the retirement age extension when he issued the disputed orders. The bench queried why the officer hadn’t approached the high court to contest the suspension.
Sanghi explained that, given the suspension was based on a full court decision, the officer believed it was more appropriate to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.
The bench noted that high courts have annulled full court decisions in judicial proceedings on several occasions.
Furthermore, the court expressed disapproval of the officer seeking details of his suspension through applications under the Right to Information Act, stating,
“It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information. He could have submitted a representation.”
Ultimately, the bench declined to entertain the petition but allowed the judicial officer to submit a representation to the high court to request a recall of the suspension order.
The bench instructed the high court to consider and decide on the representation within four weeks.