Supreme Court: Advancing Women’s Greater Participation In Judiciary Plays A Role In Promoting Gender Equality

The Court set aside a show cause notice and discharge Order, reinstating a Scheduled Tribe (ST) woman into service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, with all consequential benefits. The appeal challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s Order, which had dismissed her Writ petition against the discharge Order citing unsatisfactory progress, antecedents, and non-disclosure of "material facts."

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked, “The country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse. The appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the democratic project. This Court is of the opinion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the impugned show cause notice as well as the order of discharge deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.”

Advocate Mayank Jain appeared for the Appellant, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant had applied for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre, 2018 and had cleared the preliminary examination, mains examination, and interview, and was recommended for appointment by the High Court in 2019, securing 4th rank in the Scheduled Tribe (Women) category.

However, during verification of her character and antecedents, an issue arose regarding a previous marriage. A report stated that she had been married and this marriage was subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce. This discrepancy led to the issuance of a show cause notice alleging that she had submitted "false information" and that her "character/antecedents were not satisfactory".

The Appellant argued that the divorce was a personal affair and not relevant to her character or antecedents.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “This is certainly not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary.”

“In the present case, at the best, it can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the employer about her past government service. Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission),” the Bench remarked.

The Court explained, “The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.”

The Bench remarked, “Advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary also plays a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways:

a. Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women.

b. Women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave the way for women’s greater representation in other decision-making positions, such as in legislative and executive branches of government.

c. Higher numbers, and greater visibility, of women judges can increase the willingness of women to seek justice and enforce their rights through the courts.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020 are quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including, fixation of seniority as per the merit list in the examination in question, notional fixation of pay, except back wages. It is further clarified that the respondent shall treat the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 756)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Aakriti Dhawan and Arpit Goel; AOR Parmatma Singh

Respondents: ASG Aishwarya Bhati; AOR Mukul Kumar and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar; Advocate Anupriya Srivastava

Click here to read/download the Judgment