SC reinstates Madhya Pradesh women judicial officers terminated from service
Declaring the termination from service of two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh as “punitive, arbitrary and illegal”, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered their reinstatement within 15 days.
“It is directed that these petitioners shall be reinstated into service within a period of fifteen days from today in accordance with their seniority that they possessed as on the date of termination,” a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said, setting aside the termination orders.
The top court emphasised the need to create a conducive environment for women judges in India. “Much like ‘it is not enough to proudly state that women officers are allowed to serve the nation in the Armed Forces’, it is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to secure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance,” the Bench said.
The top court, however, said, “the petitioners herein shall not be entitled to any salary from the date of termination till their reinstatement but the monetary benefits for the said period shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits etc.”
The Bench had in January 2024 taken suo motu cognisance of the dismissal of six women civil judges in Madhya Pradesh in June 2023 for alleged “poor performance”. While four of them were reinstated in September 2024, Sharma and Chaudhary—who joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services in 2018 and 2017 respectively— were not reinstated.
The top court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to declare the duo’s probation as on the date their juniors were confirmed.
Noting that the record did not reflect any consistent poor performance, the Bench pointed out that there were inherent contradictions in the ACRs. “Therefore, in our view, the termination of these two judicial officers is punitive, arbitrary and therefore illegal,” it held.
However, it said “complaints (against Sharma and Chaudhary) if any, which were kept in abeyance by orders of the Chief Justice owing to the termination of these officers may be dealt with in accordance with law.”
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna had said, “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.”
On Friday, the Bench noted that one of the judges had got married; contracted COVID-19, had a miscarriage, and her brother was diagnosed with cancer during the period of assessment.
“The High Court has erred in acting agnostic to; inter alia, claims of insubordination of petitioner-Sarita Chaudhary and acute medical and emotional conditions battled by petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma. Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from ‘B-Very Good’ to ‘C- Good’ only considering ‘pendency and disposal’. While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer,” the Bench noted.
The top court said 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.
“Even on perusal of the records of the petitioners submitted by the learned counsel for the High Court in a sealed cover, they do not persuade us to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned terminations herein were by way of punishment as the surrounding circumstances also show that the terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the complaints of misconduct and “inefficiency” and were stigmatic in nature,” it said.
