In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the need for a more supportive and sensitive work environment for women judges, acknowledging the unique challenges they face in the judiciary.
NEW DELHI : In an important judgment (Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh) on February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, with a bench including Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, spoke about the difficulties faced by women judges in the Indian judiciary.
The Court said that while having more women in the judiciary makes it more inclusive, it is important to create a better work environment for them. Women face different challenges compared to their male colleagues, and the system needs to be more understanding and supportive.
Justice Nagarathna, who wrote the judgment, said,
“It is not enough to just have more women in the judiciary. We must also ensure they get a supportive and sensitive work environment.”
The judgment talked about the physical, emotional, and mental difficulties women judges go through, which are often not considered when their performance is evaluated. It also stressed the need for the judicial system to recognize and address these challenges.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that
“Some women judges even have to take painkillers just to be able to work all day during certain times of the month”
She emphasized the need for more awareness and sensitivity toward such issues in the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India highlighted the physical and emotional impact of miscarriage on women, particularly in the judiciary.
The Court acknowledged that, Miscarriages can lead to severe psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and even suicidal thoughts. Court remarked ,
“Psychological consequences (of a miscarriage) include an increase in the risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sometimes leading to suicides…the psychological and social effects may be more severe and long lasting. A miscarriage affects a person’s identity, leading to disappointments and challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma and isolation, amongst other aspects.”
The Court made these observations in the case of Aditi Kumar Sharma, one of the terminated officers, whose miscarriage during service in 2021 had a negative impact on her performance that year.
The judgment clarifies that gender should not be used as an excuse for poor performance. However, it must be recognized as a relevant factor that requires consideration in certain situations to ensure a fair and holistic evaluation of women judicial officers.
The Court observed that
“Representation alone is not enough if women judges are not provided with a supportive work environment, clear guidance, and fair rules”
How the Proceedings Began
The issue arose when, on May 23, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh government terminated the services of six female judicial officers from the state’s Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. This decision was based on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had been approved by the Full Court through circulation on May 13, 2023.
The Administrative Committee justified its decision by citing the officers’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), assessment charts, consistently poor performance, and other materials.
However, three of the terminated officers challenged their dismissal by writing to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), claiming it was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the 1994 recruitment rules governing the Madhya Pradesh judicial services. In response, on November 11, 2023, the CJI took suo motu cognizance of the matter.
Before conducting a full hearing, the Supreme Court requested the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider the termination orders. As a result, four judicial officers were reinstated through a resolution dated August 1, 2024. However, the terminations of Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary were not revoked.
Both Sharma and Chaudhary filed independent writ petitions, which were decided alongside the suo motu petition in the Supreme Court’s final ruling on February 28, 2025.
Justice Nagarathna’s Observations
Justice Nagarathna highlighted that
“Aditi Kumar Sharma’s ACR for 2021 had been downgraded from ‘B – Very Good’ (awarded by her Principal District Judge) to ‘C – Good’ by the Portfolio Judge. This downgrade was based only on lower case disposal rates and did not take into account the fact that Sharma was recovering from severe Covid-19 and had also suffered a miscarriage, both of which had significantly impacted her physical, mental, and emotional well-being”
The bench further noted that
during this period, Sharma was assigned a vacant court, where the disposal rate in civil matters is naturally low because judicial officers must restart proceedings from scratch, sometimes from the notice issuance stage.
Her low disposal rate in 2021 was cited as one of the reasons for her termination—despite the fact that this was also the time when the entire nation was still recovering from the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown.
What Did the High Court Say?
The High Court had argued that
“the terminations were not stigmatic or punitive as the complaints against these judicial officers were not taken into consideration while resolving to terminate their services.”
It asserted that
“these were cases of termination simpliciter of judicial officers still on probation.” Consequently, “Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which states that the services of a civil servant cannot be terminated on allegations of misconduct without giving them an opportunity to be heard, could not apply to them.”
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that
“the protection under Article 311(2) is not subject to confirmation in the services and is available to probationers as much as to those officers whose services have been confirmed.”
The judgment emphasized that
“gender is not a rescue for poor performance; rather, it is a critical consideration that must be weighed for holistic decision-making.”
Referring to the five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1957), the Court noted that
“Article 311 does not say that the protection provided thereunder is restricted only to permanent members of the services.”
It further held that
“to limit the operation of the protective provisions of the article only to these classes of persons will be to add qualifying words to the article, contrary to sound principles of interpretation of the Constitution or a statute.”
The Court reaffirmed that
“probationers require constitutional protection as much as permanent employees,”
and that the language of Article 311 does not indicate that
“the Constitution makers intended to make any distinction between the two classes.”
The Supreme Court also found that
“the complaints against the petitioners were indeed taken into consideration, as they were part of the assessment charts reviewed by the Full Court while approving the decision of the Administrative Committee.”
It concluded that
“the termination was punitive and bad in law.”
The Court held:
“Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form.”
Justice Nagarathna highlighted that
“Mrs. Sharma’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2021 was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge to ‘C-Good’ from the grading of ‘B-Very Good’ that was awarded by her Principal District Judge.”
The Court further found that
“the complaints as well as the adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioners were either not communicated to them or were not communicated within a reasonable time, and were taken into consideration either without conducting inquiries or after conducting the inquiries behind the back of the petitioners, thereby denying them the reasonable opportunity to show cause and prove their innocence.”
In this regard, the Court referred to its judgment in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999), where it was held that:
“If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and will be bad.”
On the issue of communicating adverse remarks in an ACR, the Court cited Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), which crystallized the principle laid down in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) that:
“The non-communication of the entries in the annual confidential reports of a public servant has civil consequences as it may affect his employment and other related prospects and may also result in the promotion of an officer of inferior merit. Such non-communication has thus been termed by the Court to be arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Final Ruling and Directions
Consequently, the Supreme Court
“allowed and disposed of the suo motu writ petition and the independent writ petitions.”
It set aside the
“termination order issued by the government of Madhya Pradesh on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,” deeming it
“stigmatic, punitive, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and violative of the provisions of Article 311(2).”
The Madhya Pradesh government and the Madhya Pradesh High Court were directed to reinstate the petitioners into service within fifteen days from the pronouncement of the judgment and declare their probation as on the date their juniors were confirmed.
However, the Court clarified that: the petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages for the period they were not in service, but the monetary benefits for the same will be calculated notionally for pensionary benefits.
It was also left to the High Court to deal with any pending complaints against the petitioners that were kept in abeyance by order of the Chief Justice of the High Court owing to their terminations, in accordance with the law.
What The Statistics say?
The Indian higher judiciary has been consistently critiqued for its failure to ensure gender representation in judicial appointments. Despite increasing discourse on gender inclusivity, the representation of women in both higher and lower judiciary remains a challenge.
Women in the Higher Judiciary: A Persistent Gender Gap
The Supreme Court of India currently has only two women judges on the bench—one of whom, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, authored the recent landmark judgment on judicial terminations.
As of August 2024,
“Only 14% of sitting judges in High Courts across India were women. Out of 755 sitting judges, merely 107 were women, reflecting the stagnation of female representation in the higher judiciary”
The lack of progress in gender representation has led to repeated criticisms. However, in October 2023, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud acknowledged a “trend” where more women were being appointed to the district judiciary. He suggested that
“This increase at the lower levels would eventually lead to better representation in the higher judiciary”
Women in the District Judiciary: Incremental Progress, Persistent Challenges
While there has been an increase in the percentage of women judges in the district judiciary, systemic challenges continue to hinder their professional growth and inclusion
According to the India Justice Report, 2022, women comprised 35% of the total district judges across India. The latest State of the Judiciary report (November 2023) revealed a marginal increase to 36.3%.
Some states have shown remarkable progress in women’s representation. For instance:
- Goa led the country with 70% of subordinate court judges being women.
- 14 out of 16 states examined reported that over 50% of the candidates who cleared the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam were women.
However, despite these gains, several states have no women judges in their subordinate courts at all:
- Bihar, Uttarakhand, Tripura, Manipur, and Meghalaya reported zero women judges in the district judiciary.
This disparity highlights that while some regions are progressing, others continue to lag behind in ensuring gender balance.
Infrastructural and Institutional Barriers for Women in the District Judiciary
Despite increased representation, women judges in district courts face significant infrastructural and institutional challenges, making it difficult for them to perform their duties effectively.
- Lack of Basic Facilities in Court Complexes
A lack of gender-sensitive infrastructure is a pressing issue in district courts across India. As of September 2023:
- Only 32% of district court complexes had separate lock-up facilities for women. This is a critical issue, particularly for courts dealing with cases related to gender-based violence and criminal law.
- Only 13.1% of district courts had creche facilities. Given that a significant number of women in the judiciary are working mothers, the absence of creches makes work-life balance increasingly difficult.
- Gender Bias and Work Allocation
Structural barriers also manifest in gender bias in work allocation. Women judges are often excluded from high-profile or sensitive cases. This prevents them from gaining the necessary experience for elevation to the higher judiciary.
The Supreme Court’s latest report has emphasized that
“While representation is increasing, merely having women in the judiciary is not enough. A gender-sensitive work environment, fair case allocation, and clear institutional policies are necessary to ensure real inclusion”
Representation Alone is Not Enough
While statistical data indicates gradual improvement in gender representation, systemic challenges persist in ensuring a conducive working environment for women in the judiciary. Lack of facilities, gender-based biases, and regional disparities in representation must be addressed to achieve true inclusivity.
For gender representation in the higher judiciary to improve, appointments must be coupled with institutional reforms that enable women judges to work in a fair and supportive environment. The judiciary must move beyond numerical representation and focus on creating an inclusive system where women judges can thrive and advance to higher positions.
CASE TITLE: Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [W.P.(C) No. 142/2024]
READ JUDGEMENT:
READ MORE REPORTS ON WOMEN JUDGES
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
