The Supreme Court ruled that external factors affecting judicial performance must be considered before termination. It reinstated two judges, emphasizing systemic challenges and gender representation in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court has ruled that systemic challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, case allocation failures, and lack of jurisdiction over police stations, must be considered before assessing a judge’s performance for termination.
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that a low disposal rate alone cannot justify a judge’s dismissal, especially when external circumstances affect judicial efficiency. The Court made these observations while overturning the termination of two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh.
The two officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, were dismissed by a resolution of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Administrative Committee in May 2023. Their termination was based on adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), low case disposal rates, and pending complaints, without being given a chance to respond.
The Supreme Court found that their performance assessment failed to consider major systemic issues such as vacant courts, excessive interim applications, non-appearance of witnesses, and administrative inefficiencies.
“The record does not reflect any consistent poor performance; the record speaks otherwise,”
the Court noted, rejecting the argument that the officers had failed to meet performance benchmarks.
The Court took note that one of the petitioners, Aditi Kumar Sharma, had suffered from severe COVID-19 and a miscarriage, yet her performance was assessed without taking these medical and personal hardships into account.
“Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from ‘B-Very Good’ to ‘C-Good’ only considering ‘pendency and disposal’.”
The Supreme Court stressed the need for judicial institutions to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by women judges, particularly regarding pregnancy, health conditions, and systemic biases.
It also highlighted the importance of better gender representation in the judiciary, stating:
“Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women.”
The judgment referenced India’s international commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which mandates protections for women in the workforce, particularly during pregnancy and maternity.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the termination orders and directed the immediate reinstatement of both officers within 15 days, ensuring that their service would be counted for pensionary and other benefits.
Additionally, any pending complaints against the officers must now be adjudicated as per the law.
This landmark judgment reinforces the need for a fair and compassionate judicial system that acknowledges real-world challenges while ensuring gender equality in the judiciary.
Case Title – Sarita Choudhary vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
