Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Two Lady Judicial Officers In MP, Calls For Sensitivity Towards Women's Difficulties

The Supreme Court today(February 28) set aside the termination of services of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, after finding it to be "punitive, arbitrary and illegal."

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh directed the reinstatement of the two officers within a period of fifteen days in accordance with their seniority they possessed. The Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government and the Madhya Pradesh High Court to declare the probation of the two officers as on the date their juniors were confirmed (13.05.2023). Monetary benefits of the period of termination shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

In the two cases, the Court found that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) which were adverse in nature were either not communicated to them in time. Even after an explanation was received, there were no efforts to expunge the adverse remarks. Further, the consistent reference to "poor performance" in the ACR are not in accordance with the records submitted by the High Court as the records do not reflect any consistent poor performance. They are, in fact, inherent contradictions in the ACRs.

Lastly, if the complaints against the officers were the foundation of termination, they should have been given an opportunity to be heard as per Article 311 of the Constitution read with relevant Conduct Rules.

Therefore, it observed:

"Therefore, 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." 

Aditi Kumar's case

As regards one of the officers, the Court noted that during the period of probation, she got married, got diagnosed with COVID, and suffered a miscarriage. Also, her brother was diagnosed with cancer during this period. The Court therefore held that the adverse remarks in the ACR were made without considering these factors. The Court held that the High Court ought to have considered their issues with sensitivity.

The Court noted her 2021 ACR was downgraded from B-Very Good to C-Good considering the pendency and disposal.

The Court noted: "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...

Some of the prevailing factors cited in her ACR for 2021 by the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma had occurred in 2020 but we would be remiss to ignore their cascading effects, especially as the petitioner submitted that her health had not been in a good state ever since Covid-19. Clearly her elder brother's diagnosis is of January 2021 and later in March of the same year she suffered a miscarriage herself. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the additional reasons provided by the petitioner in conjunction with her posting in a vacant court would sufficiently explain the low units earned in 2021. It is also worth noting that so far neither the quality of her work nor the reasons of her health were ever noted to act as hindrances to her service." 

The Court appreciated the arguments made by the amicus that the low disposal in the factual backdrop should not be the sole reason for termination in Aditi's case.

Sarita Choudhary's case

As regards the other officer, the court noted that no opportunity was given to her to respond to a complaint alleged to have been pending against her. The Court also noted that the ACRs had inherent contradictions.

The Court said: "The adverse remarks in the ACR were communicated to the petitioner only on 09.12.2021 and her representation was rejected by the High Court vide letter dated 13.12.2023. We find ourselves in agreement with the general submission of the petitioners that such delay in communicating adverse remarks deprives judicial officers of the ability to rectify their approach and conduct towards their work..."

As for the complaints filed against her, the Court analysed the different ACRs and noted: "In our view, these complaints should not stand as a hurdle in any holistic consideration in favour of this petitioner as neither do they speak about her capabilities as a judicial officer nor do they militate the fact that the latest ACR for 2022 was generally positive and noted her to have undoubtful integrity, good personal relationships and high disposal."

The judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna also elaborated upon the physical and psychological difficulties which women in the judiciary face. Miscarriage has a serious effect on the physical and mental health, the Court stated.

"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 stated.

After the pronouncement, Justice Nagarathna orally said, "We need to be aware of the anxieties and difficulties which women face. They take tablets, medicines to kill pain on certain days of the month to be able to sit from morning from evening. This must be realised. There must be some sensitiveness..."

Regarding the officers, Justice Nagarathna said that they went to a vacant court. "How difficult it is to revive a vacant court? Notices have to be issued, witnesses have to come, examined. Cases are not ripe for hearing. To revive a vacant court takes time. And to say - look, you have not performed, your disposal is not there, pendency is there, therefore you go out- it cannot be done."

On December 17, 2024, the Court reserved the judgment. To summarise briefly, six female civil judges were simultaneously terminated from their service in 2023 by the Madhya Pradesh Government. This decision was preceded by the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recommending their termination.

Taking suo moto cognisance, this Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider. A full bench of the Madhya Pradesh Court agreed to reinstate four judicial officers. Therefore, the other two judicial officers, Sarita Chaudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma came before the Supreme Court.

During the hearings, it was found that both lady judicial officers were on probation when they were terminated from service. In Aditi's case, it was argued that her termination was made on the adverse remarks made against her during assessment. But this was communication to her after termination. Also, the High Court while considering her termination, failed to accommodate that she suffered from mental and physical health issues after she went through an abortion.

As for Sarita, it was argued that her termination was primarily based on the various complaints filed against her, including when she posted something on Facebook.

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

Appearances: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for Aditi) Senior Advocate R Basant (for Sarita), Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal (Amicus) and AOR Arjun Garg (for Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment