A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these observations while hearing a case involving the dismissal of two women judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges should abstain from using social media and refrain from publicly commenting on judgments.
Observing that the judiciary demands utmost discipline and discretion, the court remarked, “Judicial officers must live like hermits and work like horses. There is no room for showiness in this profession.”
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these observations while hearing a case involving the dismissal of two women judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The court noted, “Social media is an open platform. Judicial officers must avoid Facebook entirely and should not express opinions on judgments. Tomorrow, if a judgment is cited, it could raise questions about a judge’s impartiality.”
Senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the terminated judges, concurred, emphasizing that no judicial officer should post anything related to their judicial work on social media.
The remarks followed a submission by senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as amicus curiae, who highlighted a Facebook post by one of the terminated judges as part of the complaints against her.
The Supreme Court had earlier taken cognizance of the termination of six women civil judges on performance grounds in November 2023.
On August 1, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinstated four of them Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi under specific terms. However, Aditi Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary were excluded from this decision, prompting the Supreme Court to review their cases.
A report by the High Court cited a decline in Aditi Sharma’s performance, with ratings dropping from “very good” and “good” to “average” and “poor” since 2019-20. Her disposal rate fell below 200 in 2022. She attributed this decline to personal hardships, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.
Acknowledging the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on judicial assessments, the Supreme Court noted that a quantitative evaluation of judges’ work was not feasible during that period. The court has issued notices to the High Court registry and the affected judicial officers for further deliberation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
