Sensitive Work Environment Must Be Ensured For Growing Number Of Women Judicial Officers : Supreme Court

While setting aside the dismissal of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Friday (February 28) underscored the importance of being sensitive to the gender-specific difficulties faced by women, while assessing their performance.

"While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical condition which may weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of women judicial officers," the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh observed.

The Court noted that one of the officers had to undergo a miscarriage during her probation period, which resulted in grave physical pain and psychological stress.  Miscarriage also affects a woman's mental health, creating a sense of stigma, isolation and challenge to one's own identity.  Apart from this, her brother was diagnosed with blood cancer. Also, she contracted COVID infection as well during that period. Without considering these aspects, her ACR was downgraded.

The judgment stressed upon the need to create an enabling environment for women to work. "It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to ensure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance," the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna said.

The judgment noted that a greater representation of women in the judiciary would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision-making and these impacts, generally and especially in cases affecting women. Advancing greater participation of women in the judiciary also plays a role in promoting gender equality.  

After pronouncing the order, Justice Nagarathna orally remarked:

"This judgment gave us an opportunity to say how women judicial officers have to be treated...You must talk to women judicial officers. They take tablets to kill pain on certain days of the month to be able to sit from morning to evening. So, this must be realised. There must be some sensitiveness."

Regarding the difficulties faced by the officer, Justice Nagarathna orally said :  "When she explained, first of all COVID-she is hospitalised. Brother has blood cancer. She herself had a miscarriage. Newly married. She went to a vacant Court. How difficult it is to revive a vacant court, notices have to be issued, witnesses have to come and examined...And then to say, look you have not performed, your disposal is there, pendency is there, therefore, I will send you out of the system... it cannot be done."

Case Details: ADITI KUMAR SHARMA v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024 & SARITA CHOUDHARY v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 142/2024 & IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE., SMW(C) No. 2/2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment