Supreme Court intervenes in Madhya Pradesh High Court’s termination of services of six judges, urging a review over concerns of criteria.
The Supreme Court of India has taken a proactive stance regarding the controversial termination of six women judges by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This case, which has garnered attention for its implications on judicial appointments and gender equality within the judiciary, saw a new turn on February 2, when the apex court suggested that the Madhya Pradesh High Court reconsider its decision.
ALSO READ: Delhi’s Historic Mosque Demolition Sparks Outrage: A 600-Year-Old Heritage Site in Mehrauli Vanishes
The case, officially named “In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Junior Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Services” was brought into the limelight when the Supreme Court, led by Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, initiated a suo motu(a court’s independent initiation of legal proceedings without a formal request from the parties involved.) writ petition. This unprecedented move came after the termination of the judges in June of the previous year, raising questions about the criteria and processes used for such decisions.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench conveyed a clear message to the counsel representing the High Court, stating, “Convey our intentions to the high court.” This directive highlights the apex court’s intent to ensure that the matter is given due consideration, reflecting its concern over the potential impact of these terminations on the individuals involved and the broader implications for the judiciary.
The terminated judges, all women, had previously raised concerns that their dismissals were primarily based on their disposal rates not meeting certain standards. This issue was particularly contentious, as three of the judges had reached out to the Supreme Court, arguing that their termination came at an early stage in their careers. They contended that the quantitative assessment of their work was unfairly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused significant delays and disruptions in court proceedings.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court took a notable step by appointing Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. During a subsequent hearing, Agarwal reported that three of the former judges had sought redress from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but their complaints had not been addressed. Furthermore, it was revealed that some of the aggrieved officers had initially filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, which were later withdrawn.
This case represents a critical examination of the criteria used for evaluating judicial performance, especially in the context of unforeseen challenges like the pandemic. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s role in overseeing the integrity of judicial appointments and terminations, ensuring that such decisions are made with fairness and transparency.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds Verdict: ED Arrests Without Written Reasons Deemed Justifiable
This case highlights the intricacies of managing the judiciary and emphasizes the need to protect the rights and careers of those in judicial service. The Supreme Court’s involvement not only shows its dedication to justice and fairness but also establishes a precedent for handling similar cases. This ensures that the judiciary continues to uphold the principles of democracy and equity, serving as a crucial pillar in our legal system.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
