Supreme Court flags 'unfortunate trend' of judges delivering questionable orders right before retirement
"Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it," the CJI remarked.
Court was told that the officer could not be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by higher judiciary.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court has condemned the practice of judges delivering questionable judicial orders on the eve of their retirement.
The CJI warned that such conduct may invite disciplinary action when competent authorities are left with the impression that decisions were driven by “extraneous and ulterior considerations”.
The bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while refusing to interfere with the suspension of Rajaram Bhartiya, principal district and sessions judge of Panna in Madhya Pradesh.
Court has called such conduct to be “very unfortunate” and added that it had come across several instances where judicial officers, aware that they were nearing retirement, appeared to pass contentious orders that raised serious questions about propriety and integrity.
“We agree that no adverse action should ordinarily be taken for merely issuing judicial orders. But if an order is passed for extraneous or ulterior considerations, why not? What if a judge passes a palpably incorrect order on his way to retirement?” it said.
Court was told that the petitioner had an otherwise stellar service record, backed by consistently high ratings in his annual confidential reports. It was further pointed out that the officer was due to retire on November 30 but was suspended on November 19, ostensibly over two judicial orders.
The bench went on to question why the petitioner had not approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court to challenge his suspension. Court was then told that the suspension was based on a full court decision, the judicial officer believed it would be more appropriate to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court for an impartial hearing.
Rejecting this contention, the bench observed that there were several instances where full court decisions had been overturned by high courts in judicial proceedings. Supreme Court also expressed displeasure over the petitioner seeking details of his suspension through applications under the Right to Information Act.
"It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information. He could have submitted a representation," the bench said, while declining to entertain the petition.