The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges should refrain from engaging with social media or sharing their views on judgments online, noting that they must lead a life of solitude and dedicate themselves to their work with unwavering commitment.

Stating that there is no place for showiness in the judiciary, the court said, "Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgments because tomorrow if the judgment is cited, judge has already expressed one way or the other."

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these oral observations during the hearing of a case concerning the dismissal of two women judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

"It (social media) is an open platform. You have to live life a hermit, work like a horse. So much sacrifice judicial officers have to do. They should not go into Facebook at all," the court observed.

Senior advocate R. Basant, representing one of the terminated women judges, supported the court's stance, asserting that no judge or judicial officer should share content related to judicial work on social media platforms like Facebook.  

The remarks came after senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as an amicus curiae, highlighted complaints against one of the dismissed judges, pointing to a Facebook post as part of his submission.  

The Supreme Court had taken note of the dismissal of six women civil judges for performance-related reasons on November 11, 2023. Subsequently, on August 1, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a full court meeting, decided to reinstate four of them—Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—under specific conditions.  

However, the remaining two judges, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, were excluded from the reinstatement process, a decision now under the Supreme Court's consideration.

A report by the High Court highlighted a decline in Aditi Sharma's performance, noting a shift from "very good" and "good" ratings to "average" and "poor" since 2019-20, with her case disposal rate falling below 200 in 2022. In her defense, Sharma informed the High Court that she had suffered a miscarriage in 2021, followed by her brother's cancer diagnosis, which significantly impacted her work.

The court observed that a quantitative assessment of the judges' performance could not be conducted due to the disruptions caused by Covid-19. Despite this limitation, the judges were terminated. Consequently, the court issued notices to the High Court registry and the judicial officers who had not challenged their termination.