The Supreme Court will review on December 3 the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s sealed report regarding the termination of civil judges Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma for alleged unsatisfactory performance. The judges argue their dismissal violated constitutional rights, especially considering maternal leave. This case could reshape how performance assessments respect fundamental rights in the judiciary.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will review on December 3 the sealed cover report presented by the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding the termination of two women civil judges, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma. The judges were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh government for alleged “unsatisfactory performance” during their probation period.
The bench, led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, directed that the sealed report, which allegedly contains adverse remarks and other materials against the two judges, be shared with amicus curiae and senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal. However, the report will not be shared with the counsel for the terminated judges at this stage.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the terminated officers, questioned whether there was any fresh material to rebut. The bench instructed the amicus curiae to examine and report back on any new evidence in the sealed document.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance on November 11, 2023, of the termination of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh government. It noted that a fair quantitative assessment of their work could not be conducted due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Four of the terminated judges—Jyoti Varkade, Sonakshi Joshi, Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—were reinstated after the Madhya Pradesh High Court reconsidered their cases in August 2023. However, no such relief was granted to Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, whose termination orders were upheld.
In her plea, one of the terminated judges argued that her dismissal violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty. She also emphasized that her maternity leave was unfairly factored into the performance assessment.
“It is a settled law that maternity and child care leave is a fundamental right of a woman and also the infant. Evaluation of the applicant’s performance during the probation period based on the leave taken is grossly violative of her fundamental rights,”
the plea stated.
The terminated judges claim their dismissal occurred despite having no adverse remarks or unblemished records during their service. They allege that the decision lacked due process, as mandated by law.
The court’s decision on December 3 will examine whether the termination orders were justified or if they violated fundamental rights. The focus remains on ensuring justice, especially in cases where factors like maternity leave may have impacted performance evaluations unfairly.
This landmark case could redefine how performance assessments and fundamental rights are balanced in the judiciary.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES