Supreme Court: Not Enough To Find Comfort Solely In Growing Number Of Female Judicial Officers If Unable To Secure Sensitive Work Environment For Them
The Supreme Court observed that while gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration that must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer.
The Supreme Court while setting aside the termination Orders against female Civil Judges from the Madhya Pradesh State, remarked that it is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female Judicial Officers if we are unable to secure a sensitive work environment for them.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions filed by two female Judicial Officers namely Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma who were terminated from service during their probation period.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “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 female judicial officers if we are unable to secure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance. The High Court has erred in acting agnostic to, inter alia, claims of insubordination of petitioner-Sarita Chaudhary and acute medical and emotional conditions battled by petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma. Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from ‘B-Very Good’ to ‘C Good’ only considering ‘pendency and disposal’.”
The Bench added that, while gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal was appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Senior Advocates R. Basant and Indira Jaising appeared for the Petitioners while Advocate Arjun Garg appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
Out of six women Judicial Officers who were terminated from service during their probation period, four of them were reinstated pursuant to the resolution of the Full Court of the Respondent i.e., the Madhya Pradesh High Court on certain terms. Insofar as the two Judicial Officers i.e., the Petitioners, there was no revocation of the earlier resolution and consequently their termination was under challenge in the Writ Petitions. In 2023, six women Judicial Officers serving in the Madhya Pradesh State (Civil Judges, Junior Division) were terminated on the recommendation of the Administrative Committees of the High Court. Earlier, the Administrative Committees had met for shortlisting of officers for confirmation of judicial officers on probation. The shortlist was then recommended to the Full Court for confirmation.
Thereafter, the High Court issued an Order confirming a list of 403 Judicial Officers and recommending termination of services, inter alia, of the Petitioners. Based on this, the Termination Orders in respect of the Petitioners were passed, thereby discharging them from their duties. Subsequently, upon considering the representation of three women judicial officers, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) directed that the case be registered by way of a suo motu Writ Petition in respect of 6 terminated women judicial officers. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to reconsider their termination and consequently, four officers namely Jyoti Varkade, Sonakshi Joshi, Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi were considered for reinstatement. Hence, the lis was in respect of four officers stood closed and the adjudication remained only in respect of the Petitioners.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Portfolio Judge deemed it fit to downgrade her from ‘B-Very Good’ to ‘C-Good’ only due to ‘pendency and disposal’. We are of the view that an appropriate analysis of ‘pendency and disposal’ must not be distanced from the practical realities of the courtroom and the petitioner’s life.”
The Court further reiterated that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. It noted that the imprimatur of the Chief Justice to an ACR (Annual Confidential Report) is an approval of the highest judicial office in the State which is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of the said procedure being completed, the Administrative Committee could not have considered by classifying an unapproved ACR as ‘other material’.
“… the ACRs which were adverse in nature were either not communicated in time and even after an explanation was received, there were no effort to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said ACRs on the basis of a consideration of the explanation. Possibly they were simply rejected”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, held that the termination of the two judicial officers i.e., the Petitioners is punitive, arbitrary, and illegal.
“… we are of the view that the impugned terminations herein were by way of punishment as the surrounding circumstances also show that the terminations were, inter alia, founded on the allegations of the complaints of misconduct and “inefficiency” and were stigmatic in nature. Even though many of the complaints against these officers may have been closed or resulted in advisories/warnings, they could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations”, it further observed.
The Court held that the Resolutions of the Administrative Committee are illegal and contrary to the established principles of law and are liable to be set-aside.
Women Workforce: Women in the Indian Judiciary:
The Court remarked, “Many have stressed that increased diversity within a judiciary, and ensuring judges are representative of society, enables the judiciary as a whole to better respond to diverse social and individual contexts and experiences. It is a recognition of this fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting women."
Moreover, the Court emphasised that advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary 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.
“The freedom from discrimination or equal protection of the laws during pregnancy and maternity of a woman are precious rights for women workforce. … Cognizant of the transformative intent of our constitutional project, this Court noted the need to rebuild societal and legal structures to realise equal opportunity in public employment and gender equality”, it said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Writ Petitions, set aside the termination orders including the Resolution, and directed that the Petitioners be reinstated in their service with all consequential benefits within 15 days.
Cause Title- Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 289)
