Feudal Mindset Of High Court Toward District Judges An Untreatable Disease: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Judge’s Termination Over Bail Orders

The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal remarked, “The feudal mindset of the High Court governing its relationship with the Judges of the District Judiciary, is the untreatable disease. The High Court would do well to introspect and realise that in the era of unbridled social media and unmoderated expression of public opinion, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and as we sow, so shall we reap.”

The Court held, “In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injustice suffered by the Petitioner, the hardships he and his family were subjected to, the humiliation in society that he had to face, only on account of passing judicial orders, without an iota of material coming on record to even establish corruption even on the anvil of preponderance of probability, this Court deems it essential to impose a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) which shall be paid to the Petitioner, to be shared between the Respondents.”

Background

Petitioner, who had served in the judiciary since 1987, was prematurely retired just two years before his official retirement. He was accused of misconduct in connection with bail orders passed in the infamous Vyapam scam and other criminal cases. The main charge against him was that he showed inconsistency in granting bail allowing bail in some applications while denying others.

Findings

The Court found that such divergence in bail orders, in and of itself, did not amount to misconduct. The bench noted that none of the accused or affected parties had ever alleged that bail was denied due to failure to meet any illegal or extraneous demands.

The Court emphasized that no High Court bench ever reversed any of the bail orders in question, which would have indicated judicial error or impropriety.

“If the Respondent No.2 [High Court] on the administrative side is going to question the exercise of discretion under Section 438 and 439 (or the corresponding Sections of the BNSS) by the Judges of the District Judiciary in favour of the applicant, where the question of corruption is merely an imputation by the enquiry officer, unsustainable by any material on record, the injustice done would be such that cannot be reversed later on,” the Court added.

The Court criticized the decision to terminate petitioner without any judicial finding or reversal of his bail orders, and without substantiated evidence of corruption. It noted that the only mention of corruption appeared in one out of four charges, and even that was not supported by evidence but merely constituted an unproven imputation by the inquiry officer.

“If the Court on the administrative side felt that the orders were passed because of extraneous consideration, these orders could have been taken suo motu on the judicial side and set aside, but such a course of action was never adopted,” the Court observed.

The Court described the dynamic between High Court judges and district judges as deeply troubling. It added, “The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf. The body language of the Judges of the District Judiciary when they greet a Judge of the High Court stops short of grovelling before the High Court Judge, making the Judges of the District Judiciary the only identifiable species of invertebrate mammals.”

The Court pointed out, “Instances of the judges of the District Judiciary personally attending to Judges of the High Court (as desired by them) on railway platforms and waiting on them with refreshments, are commonplace, thus perpetuating a colonial decadence with a sense of entitlement. Judges of the District Judiciary on deputation to the registry of the High Court are almost never offered a seat by the Judges of the High Court and on a rare occasion when they are, they are hesitant to sit down before the High Court Judge. The subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary is complete and irreversible, so it seems. The relationship between District Judiciary and the High Court in the State is not based on mutual respect for each other but one where a sense of fear and inferiority is consciously instilled by one on the subconscious of the other.”

The Court further added that the fear of district judiciary is understandable, “They have families, children who go to school, parents undergoing treatment, a home to be built, savings to be accumulated and when the High Court terminates his service abruptly on account of a judicial order passed him, he and his entire family is out on the streets with no pension and the stigma of facing a society that suspects his integrity.”

The Court also commented on the reflection of caste hierarchies within the judicial system, it added, “The penumbra of the caste system manifests in the judicial structure in this state where those in the High Court are the savarn as and the shudras are the Les Misérables of the District Judiciary.”

Recognizing petitioner’s 28-year blemish-free career, the Court observed that the petitions for bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were deliberately listed before him due to his impeccable integrity and professional reputation. The Court found it unjust that such a judicial officer was removed from service without any credible basis, merely two years before retirement.

The High Court directed that his termination order be set aside and he should be paid back wages with 7% annual interest from the date of his termination, his pensionary benefits be restored in full and he is to be paid ₹5 lakh in compensation, jointly by the High Court administration and the State government, for the hardship and humiliation suffered.

Cause Title: Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Vipin Yadav

Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Shweta Yadav, Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with Advocate Kaustubh Chaturvedi

Click here to read/download Judgment