SC sets aside termination of 2 women judicial officers in MP, terms it punitive

Advertisement

“It is directed that these petitioners shall be reinstated into service within a period of 15 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 for creating 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 women 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.”

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, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita 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 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.