Supreme Court: Judicial Officer Should Not Be Put Through Ordeal Of Disciplinary Proceeding Or Prosecution Merely Because Order Is Wrong Or There’s Error Of Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized that only because an Order is wrong or there is an error of Judgment, a Judicial Officer is not put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding.

The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal relating to a Judicial Officer who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “… in appropriate cases where criminal prosecution is warranted against a judicial officer, the High Court should not hesitate to have the same initiated. That is the only way to weed out black-sheeps sullying the fair name of the judiciary. Due care and caution must be exercised by the High Court in initiating such proceedings. It should be ensured that only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more, a judicial officer is not put through the ordeal of a disciplinary proceeding or a prosecution.”

The Bench remarked that a fearless Judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and Advocate Kanu Agarwal appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while AOR Arjun Garg appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant was a Judicial Officer who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service. He joined service in 1987 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. He was promoted as Additional District Judge in 2003 and thereafter, he was transferred to Khargone, District Mandaleshwar (MP), where he joined as First Additional District & Sessions Judge. In the course of discharge of his duties, he dealt with several matters, including bail applications under the Excise Act. The sole and exclusive basis on which he was removed were four Judicial Orders by which he enlarged certain parties thereon on bail.

Those four Orders were contrasted with 14 other Orders of bail and after finding that in the four Orders Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 was not referred to, action was taken. According to the High Court, in the 14 other Orders, the Appellant referred to the said Section implying thereby that he was conscious of the existence of the said Section on the statute. Section 59-A prescribes what has now famously come to be known as “twin conditions” for grant of bail. The question before the Apex Court was whether on facts, based on the four Judicial Orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the Appellant from service.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “A judicial Officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases. Invariably one party to the case would lose and go back unhappy. Disgruntled elements amongst them, wanting to settle scores may raise frivolous allegations. The Trial Judiciary also has tremendous work pressure and works under trying working conditions. Large number of cases are listed in a day and most of the Judicial Officers give their very best while discharging their duties.”

The Court noted that instances have also emerged from different parts of the country, where not just disgruntled parties but some mischievous elements in the Bar have also resorted to intimidatory tactics against the members of the Trial Judiciary by engineering false and anonymous complaints.

“Strict and strong action in accordance with law should be taken against such individuals filing a false and frivolous complaint against a judicial officer and/or if found to be engineering the false and frivolous complaints. Such proceedings would include in appropriate cases, proceedings for contempt of court”, it added.

The Court observed that in case the person filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, apart from proceedings for contempt of Court, reference to the Bar Council should be made for disciplinary action.

“Bar councils, on receipt of such references, have to dispose of the matter expeditiously. … Equally, if the complaint of misconduct against the judicial officer is prima facie found to be true, prompt action to initiate disciplinary proceeding should be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established”, it further said.

The Court remarked that when false allegations fly thick and fast, the Judicial Officers cannot react and here is where the High Court which is vested with the supervisory control has to exercise great caution and circumspection.

“As held in R.R. Parekh (supra), it should be borne-in-mind that inference of misconduct or about extraneous considerations having actuated, the decision cannot be drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous. It has been held that a wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment and inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment. Ultimately, it is not the correctness of the verdict but the conduct of the Officer in question which is determinative”, it reiterated.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that the Appellant has been held guilty of misconduct only based on certain judicial orders granting bail without anything more.

“The appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the normal age of superannuation. Since the appellant has been kept out of service for no fault of his, we are of the opinion that full back wages with all consequential benefits should be given to the appellant. Let the monetary benefits be released within a period of eight weeks from today with interest @ 6 per cent”, it directed and concluded.

Justice Pardiwala’s Concurrent Opinion

Justice J.B. Pardiwala while concurring, observed that this Judgment will go a long way in protecting judicial officers of the district judiciary from being subjected to departmental action for alleged wrong or incorrect exercise of discretion in passing orders of bail without anything more.

“A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings. … Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail. It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge, of some administrative action being taken that even in a deserving case, well within the principles of law, bail is declined”, he said.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Orders, and directed that the copy of the Judgment shall be transmitted to all the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts in the country, so as to enable them to draw the attention of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to the same.

Cause Title- Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 7)

Click here to read/download the Judgment