The Madhya Pradesh High Court had advised the dismissal of six female judges, citing unsatisfactory performance during their probation period.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognizance of the termination of six female judges by the Madhya Pradesh government, a decision that was based on the recommendation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court had deemed their performance during the probation period as unsatisfactory. The judges affected by this decision are Sarita Chaudhary, Priya Sharma, Rachna Atulkar Joshi, Aditi Kumar Sharma, Sonakshi Joshi, and Jyoti Barkhade.
A two-judge bench of the Apex Court, led by Justice B V Nagarathna and comprising Justice Sanjay Karol, has appointed advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter. The hearing dates are yet to be announced.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Denial of Sex by Wife Constitutes Cruelty, Grounds for Divorce
One of the dismissed judges filed an impleadment application, claiming that despite an unblemished service record of four years and no adverse remarks against her, she was terminated without due process, violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. She argued that the reasons for her termination contradicted the record maintained by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and demonstrated arbitrariness.
She pointed out an inconsistency in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2022, where she received a ‘very good’ grade from the Principal District and Sessions Judge and portfolio judge, but an ‘average’ grade from the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. She claimed this grading was an afterthought, as it was assigned a month after her termination.
ALSO READ: CJI Chandrachud Leads the Supreme Court’s Transition to a Paperless Future
Furthermore, she highlighted that her termination order was passed even after her probation period had concluded in November 2020. She argued that even if the probation period was extended, it could not have gone beyond November 2021. She also raised concerns about the consideration of her maternity and child care leave in the quantitative work assessment, stating that it would be unjust and a violation of her fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take suo motu cognizance of this issue underscores the importance of fair and transparent processes in the judicial system, especially concerning the rights and careers of judicial officers. The case brings to the forefront the challenges faced by women in the judiciary, particularly in balancing professional commitments with personal responsibilities like maternity and child care.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
