Today, On 28th February, The Supreme Court ordered the reappointment of civil judges in Madhya Pradesh and asked for more respect towards women judges. It said that women judges should get a safe and comfortable place to work. The Court also stressed that a supportive environment is important for equal opportunities in the judiciary. This decision shows the Court’s commitment to fairness and justice for all.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court called for the reappointment of two women judges who were dismissed following negative reports from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the government.
A bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh highlighted that one of the judges faced significant personal challenges during the assessment period, including marriage, contracting COVID-19, experiencing a miscarriage, and having a brother diagnosed with cancer.
The Court stated,
“The High Court report does not indicate consistent poor performance by the judges; rather, it shows otherwise. There are inherent contradictions in the ACRs. We have determined that an opportunity must be provided prior to termination. Therefore, the termination is punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.”
The bench further noted,
“Even upon reviewing the report submitted by the High Court in a sealed cover, we are not persuaded to change our view. We assert that the termination was punitive and stigmatic in nature, and it should not have been the basis for the dismissal. Consequently, the orders from the full court, the administrative report, and the government order are set aside.”
While annulling the termination orders, the Court ruled that,
“They are eligible to rejoin, and their probation date shall align with when their juniors were confirmed. Monetary benefits during this period shall be calculated notionally for pension purposes, and they must be reinstated within 15 days according to their seniority.”
Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need for a supportive environment for women judges in India, stating,
“It is crucial to ensure their entry, retention, and advancement in the judiciary. Greater representation of women will enhance the quality of justice and promote gender equality. Additionally, freedom from discrimination during pregnancy is a fundamental right. The experience of childbirth brings fulfillment, while miscarriage can severely impact mental health and even lead to suicide.”
The Court expressed concern over the treatment of the terminated judges, stating,
“We empathize with them; they have suffered financially and emotionally. It is essential to engage with women judicial officers, as many endure physical pain to fulfill their responsibilities.”
This judgment was delivered in a suo motu case concerning the dismissal of six women civil judges in Madhya Pradesh. While four judges were reinstated following the Supreme Court’s intervention in September last year, the two remaining judges, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary were not. Both joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services in 2018 and 2017, respectively.
In January of last year, the Supreme Court took notice of the six judges’ dismissals by the Madhya Pradesh government in June 2023. The terminations were based on findings from an administrative committee and a full court meeting of High Court judges that deemed their performance during probation unsatisfactory.
In a February 2024 hearing, the Supreme Court inquired whether the High Court was willing to reconsider its decision. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s full court refused to revoke the terminations, submitting adverse remarks against Sharma and Chaudhary in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court.
In July, the Supreme Court again urged the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reassess the representations from the affected judges.
During a prior hearing, Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“I wish men had menstruation; then they would understand… It is easy to say ‘case dismissed’ and leave. If we are delving into this matter at length, can lawyers really claim we are slow? Particularly for women, who may be suffering physically and mentally; we should not label them as slow and terminate their positions.”
Advocate Arjun Garg, representing the High Court, argued that Sharma’s performance ratings fell from “very good” and “good” in 2019-2020 to “average” and “poor” in subsequent years. In 2022, Sharma had around 1,500 pending cases, with a disposal rate below 200. She earned 44.16 units for civil cases and 269 units for criminal cases.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising represented the petitioners, while Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal assisted the Court with substantive submissions.