Breaking| Termination Is Punitive & Stigmatic: Supreme Court Reinstates Two Terminated Women Judges Of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court today set aside the termination orders of two female civil judges from Madhya Pradesh, ruling that their dismissal during probation was punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N.K. Singh directed that the judges be reinstated within 15 days, with their probation period aligned with their juniors and monetary benefits calculated notionally for pensionary purposes.

The Court termed the termination punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.

The case arose from the simultaneous termination of six female judicial officers, primarily on the grounds of a slow disposal rate of cases and other alleged performance issues. The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue, leading to a reconsideration by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which reinstated four of the six officers. However, two judges, Aditi Kumar Sharma and another officer, remained terminated, prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Key Observations 

The Bench while, delivering the judgment, outlined the key points for consideration:

1. Whether the termination was punitive and contrary to law.

2. If so, what relief should be granted to the petitioners.

The Court scrutinized the adverse confidential reports (ACRs) and found inherent contradictions, noting that the High Court’s administrative report did not consistently indicate poor performance. The Court further held that the judges were not given an opportunity to respond to complaints against them, making their dismissal a form of punishment rather than a fair evaluation of their performance.

Termination Deemed Stigmatic

The sealed cover report submitted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to convince the Supreme Court to take a different view. The Bench held that the termination orders were stigmatic, as they were based on unverified complaints or pending matters.

Consequently, the orders of the Full Court, the administrative committee, and the Madhya Pradesh government were set aside.

Impact of Miscarriage on Women in the Judiciary

The Bench also addressed larger issues concerning women in the legal profession, particularly the impact of pregnancy and miscarriage on female judges. The judgment emphasized that:

1. Increasing women’s representation in the judiciary enhances the quality of justice and promotes gender equality.

2. Women judges must be protected from discrimination during pregnancy and miscarriage.

3. Miscarriage has severe psychological and emotional consequences, including stigma, isolation, and long-term health effects.

4. A supportive work environment is crucial for women judicial officers to perform their duties effectively.

Directions Issued 

The termination orders were set aside.

1. The judges are eligible to rejoin within 15 days.

2. Their probation period will be considered from the date their juniors were confirmed.

3. Notional calculation of monetary benefits for pensionary purposes.

4. Any pending complaints against them must be decided as per the law.

The Court also expressed its appreciation for Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who acted as amicus curiae in the matter. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and the suo moto matter, with the aforesaid directions. 

It is to be noted that on December 17, 2024, the Apex Court had reserved order in the case. 

Judges Affected by Termination

The six women judges whose services were terminated are:

1. Sarita Chaudhary

2. Priya Sharma

3. Rachna Atulkar Joshi

4. Aditi Kumar Sharma

5. Sonakshi Joshi

6. Jyoti Barkhade

Amicus Curiae Appointed

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court had appointed Advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist in the matter.

Background

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had initially found the six judicial officers' probationary performance unsatisfactory, leading to its recommendation for their termination. The Madhya Pradesh government implemented the termination in June 2023. However, the Supreme Court's suo motu intervention has now resulted in a re-evaluation of the case. 

Cause Title: Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [W.P.(C) No. 142/2024]