The Supreme Court on Friday directed the reinstatement of two women judges who were dismissed from service based on adverse reports by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the state government.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed that one of the judges had faced multiple personal challenges during the assessment period, including marriage, contracting COVID-19, a miscarriage, and her brother’s cancer diagnosis. The Court proceeded to hold that…
"The High Court report does not show consistent poor performance of judges and it speaks otherwise. There are inherent contradictions in the ACRs...We have held that opportunity had to be given before termination. Thus, termination is punitive, arbitrary and illegal."
"Even on perusal of report given by the High Court in a sealed cover, it does not persuade us to take a different view. We hold that the termination was in the form of punishment. The termination was stigmatic in nature. These could not have been the basis of the impugned termination. Thus orders of full court, administrative report and the government order are set aside," the bench added.
While setting aside the termination orders, the Court held,
"They are eligible to rejoin and date of probation shall be when their juniors were confirmed. Monetary benefits of the said period shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits etc and they need to be taken back to service within 15 days in terms of seniority."
"We empathise with them, they lost money, finances and gave them anxiety. You must talk to women judicial officers. They take medicines to kill pain on certain days of the month so that they can sit morning till night in court. You must show sensitivity."
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a suo motu case concerning the dismissal of six women civil judges in Madhya Pradesh. While four of them were reinstated following the Court’s intervention in September last year, two—Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary—were not. Sharma and Chaudhary had joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services in 2018 and 2017, respectively.
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of their termination in January 2023, after the Madhya Pradesh government dismissed the six judges in June that year. The termination orders were issued by the state’s law department based on recommendations from an administrative committee and a full court meeting of High Court judges, which deemed their probationary performance unsatisfactory.
During a February 2024 hearing, the Supreme Court had orally asked the High Court whether it was willing to reconsider its decision. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s full court refused to revoke the termination orders for Sharma and Chaudhary, citing adverse remarks against them in a sealed cover submitted to the Supreme Court. Both judges had been terminated in 2023.
In July, the Supreme Court again directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider the affected judges’ representations within a month.
During a previous hearing, Justice Nagarathna had remarked:
"I wish men had menstruation, then only they would understand... It is easy to say case dismissed and go home. If we are hearing this matter at length, can lawyers say we are slow? Particularly women, if they are suffering physically and mentally; do not say they are slow and terminate them."
Appearing for the High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg argued that Sharma’s performance had declined over the years—from “very good” and “good” ratings in 2019-20 to “average” and “poor” in subsequent years. In 2022, Sharma had around 1,500 pending cases with a disposal rate below 200, earning 44.16 units for civil cases and 269 units for criminal cases.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, as Amicus Curiae, assisted the Court on substantive issues.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy