The court stated that increasing the number of women judges not only improves decision-making quality but also supports the broader goal of promoting gender equality.
New Delhi, May 22 – The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favour of reinstating a woman judicial officer in Rajasthan who was removed from service during her probation, stating that more women in the judiciary would “greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts in cases affecting women.”
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a powerful judgment stressing the importance of women’s representation in the judiciary.
The court stated that increasing the number of women judges not only improves decision-making quality but also supports the broader goal of promoting gender equality.
“It is a recognition of this fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting women,” the bench stated.
Background
The woman officer, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, had successfully cleared the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination in 2017 despite suffering from a medical condition. She was appointed in February 2019 on a two-year probation. However, she was never given a posting order and was removed from service in May 2020, with authorities stating she was not fit for confirmation.
Challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s August 2023 order that refused to grant her relief, she approached the Supreme Court.
“The appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission),” the Supreme Court noted, indicating that the punishment did not fit the nature of the omission.
The bench emphasised that understanding women’s role in the judiciary requires examining three key factors:
- Entry into the legal profession
- Retention and growth in the profession
- Advancement to senior positions
“To holistically understand women’s effective participation in judiciary, it was important to look at three main phenomena — their entry into legal profession, retention and growth of their numbers in profession and advancement of women, in numbers, to senior echelons of profession.”
The court added that many experts believe that diversity among judges makes the judiciary more sensitive to varied social realities.
“Many have stressed that an increased diversity within the judiciary and ensuring judges were society’s representatives enabled it to better respond to social and individual contexts and experiences,” it observed.
The presence of women judges can also challenge and change gender stereotypes.
“Observing judicial appointments of women, particularly at the senior level, could shift gender stereotypes, thereby, changing attitudes and perceptions on what was appropriate for men and women.”
The bench further said that the visibility of women in the judiciary could inspire more women to aim for decision-making roles in other fields like politics and administration.
“The women’s visibility as judicial officers could pave the way for women’s greater representation in other decision-making positions, such as in legislative and executive branches of government,” the verdict noted.
Their presence also boosts confidence among women seeking justice.
“The bench said higher numbers and greater visibility of women judges can increase the willingness of women to seek justice and enforce their rights through courts.”
The court found that the woman had joined as a government teacher in December 2014 and resigned in October 2018, with her resignation being officially accepted in December 2018.
She appeared for the judicial service interview on November 2, 2018, after submitting her resignation on October 25, 2018. Hence, the court said she had no obligation to disclose her previous government job in her interview.
“The woman, it came on record, submitted her resignation on October 25, 2018, much prior to her interview which was conducted on November 2, 2018, the question of disclosing the past government service was certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service.”
The court clarified that her case did not involve any concealment of criminal history.
“This is certainly not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary,” the bench said.
Also, it was not alleged that her work during probation was unsatisfactory.
“The top court said it was nobody’s case that her performance during probationary period was unsatisfactory.”
The judges noted that while probation can either end with confirmation or a simple termination, removing someone for alleged misconduct would leave a permanent stigma.
“The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him,” the court explained.
Case Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr., SLP(C) No. 23529/2023
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
