On Friday the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated its earlier decision to terminate the services of six women judicial officers, despite intervention from the Supreme Court. The apex court had requested the high court to reconsider its decision within a three-week timeframe, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court has chosen to uphold its original stance.

The counsel representing the high court conveyed this decision to a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih. This decision comes after a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court, following appeals from three of the terminated judicial officers against the termination of their services. The matter has now been scheduled for further proceedings on April 30.

The Supreme Court had initially taken cognizance of the termination of services of these six women civil judges on January 12, issuing notices to the registrar general of the high court and the terminated judicial officers to provide their responses. Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal is assisting the apex court as an amicus curiae in this matter, while advocate Tanvi Dubey represented one of the former judicial officers during the recent hearing.

Agrawal had previously informed the Supreme Court that no adverse remarks regarding the performance of these former judicial officers were made by the administrative committee of the high court. Additionally, three of the terminated officers had lodged appeals in the high court against their dismissal, which are still pending. It was also highlighted that the plea initially filed in the Supreme Court had been withdrawn.

According to an office report dated January 11, submitted to the apex court, three former Civil Judges, class-II (Junior Division) from the Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service, had raised concerns over their termination, citing the inability to conduct a quantitative assessment of their work due to the Covid-19 outbreak.

The termination orders were issued in June 2023 by the state law department following assessments by the high court's administrative committee and a full-court meeting, which deemed their performance during the probation period unsatisfactory.

One of the former judges, through advocate Charu Mathur, filed an impleadment application alleging that despite a commendable four-year service record without any adverse remarks, she was terminated without due process. She argued that her termination violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, particularly emphasizing the injustice caused by evaluating her performance during the probation period based on her maternity and child care leave.