'If Men Had Menstruation, They'll Know' : Supreme Court Questions MP HC Over Dismissal Of Lady Judge Following Miscarriage

The Supreme Court today (December 3) expressed strong remarks against the criteria set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in assessing the performance of lady judicial officers in which the High Court ignored to accommodate the mental and physical ailment suffered by the judge due to miscarriage.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh, while hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was informed that one of the lady officers, has consistently performed poorly. Her disposal rate of cases was cited as an example wherein it was pointed out that she had only disposed of two civil suits in a year.

In this case, six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On the direction of the Court, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh Court agreed to reinstate 4 female judicial officers. Therefore, 2 lady officers are before the Court seeking a remedy against termination.

It was also pointed out that during the COVID period, although the unit criteria for assessment of performance was suspended, her disposal rate remained under average. Then for the year 2021, the petitioner earned only 1.36 unit. The Counsel for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg, stated that since COVID-19 had just passed, the criteria was that whatever was earned will be doubled but still her disposal rate remained so.

When Justice Nagarathna went through the record, she found that the officer had suffered a miscarriage and was not able to perform due to her bad mental health. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for the petitioner) added that she had COVID as well. Not only that, but her real brother had cancer. 

On this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: "I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this. The lady, she has got pregnant and she had miscarriage! The mental and physical ailment of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. What is this? I wish men have menstruation. Then they will know what it is. We are sorry. This is a High Court dealing with a woman judicial officer. Black and white she has written here that due to miscarriage. Have the same kind of criteria for the male judges!

And we will see how many people you are going to terminate. Judges are not just an auxiliary system. What is this? Mr. Counsel you say, see the performance, see the performance! After dealing with this matter, how many advocates can say the Court is slow? That we are not disposing?...We may not complete the list in this Court, but are we slow? What is the meaning of target or units? Very easy to say dismiss, dismiss and go home! Rotten thing for district judiciary. Don't say that she has not done it. Look at the record! When they are not working, send them home. But when they are suffering physically and mentally, don't say they are not working, particularly for women. We are not shooting the messenger but we are expressing..."

After the Court expressed a strong opinion, Counsel for the High Court submitted that he would not argue any further on this case. 

Both amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal and Jaising submitted that the complaints filed against the lady judicial officer were kept in abeyance and no conclusion was reached on it. However, these complaints were taken into consideration by the full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while holding that she could not be reinstated. 

Further, adverse remarks about her performance, based on which her termination took place, were made by the inspection judge from Ratlamj (administrative judge) and not by the Principal District Judge where she was posted in Satna. Moreover, these remarks were informed after the termination. It is Jaising's case that the lady officer in her ACR had received good and very good remarks but the inspection judge gave her 'average remark' which affected her assessment. 

The matter will now be taken up next on December 12.

Case Details:  ADITI KUMAR SHARMA v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024