Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on February 28, 2025, set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's dismissal of two women judicial officers, ruling it punitive, arbitrary, and unlawful for failing to adhere to established legal principles.

The court also underscored the need for greater representation of women in the judiciary, stating that it would enhance the overall quality of judicial decision-making, particularly in cases affecting women.

The bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh ordered the reinstatement of Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma in service with all consequential benefits, maintaining that advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary also plays a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways.

"We set aside the termination orders vis-à-vis the petitioners herein including Resolution dated 13.05.2023 and the order/letter dated 13.05.2023 of the High Court, order of the State Government dated 23.05.2023 and all consequential adverse orders, if any," the bench directed.

It said that 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," the bench said. 

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 court noted. 

"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," the bench said.

After examining their plea, the bench said the ACRs, which were adverse in nature, were either not communicated in time, and even after an explanation was received, there was no effort to expunge the adverse remarks on the basis of a consideration of the explanation. 

"Possibly, they were simply rejected. The reference to the consistent “poor performance” is also not in accordance with the record," the bench said.

As far as “other material” considered is concerned, the bench opined, it could have been the complaints that were either concluded or pending against them.

"If the complaints formed the foundation for these officers to be terminated, we find that the voluminous cases would clearly point out that an opportunity had to be given before termination. This is particularly having regard to Article 311 of the Constitution read with relevant Conduct Rules," the bench said.

The court pointed out that even on perusal of the records of the petitioners submitted by the counsel for the high court in a sealed cover, they did not persuade it to take a different view in the matter.

"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," the bench said.

Even though many of the complaints against these officers may have been closed or resulted in advisories or warnings, they could not have been the basis for the impugned terminations, the court added.

On July 23, 2024, in a suo motu proceeding, the court had requested the Full Court of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination of the six women judicial officers.

The Full Court Meeting held on August 01, 2024, considered four officers, namely, Smt Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Smt Rachna Atulkar Joshi, for reinstatement. 

However, there was no quietus to the controversy qua two other officers, namely Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, as the Full Court of the High Court did not deem it proper to reinstate them.

Examining their case, the bench said, "We note that during the time period, the petitioner was posted in a vacant court, which understandably does not see a high disposal rate in civil matters as Judicial Officers are required to re-initiate and kickstart the entire machinery of civil suits, sometimes from the issuance of notice(s)."

The court said if a termination from service is not visited with any stigma, and neither are there any civil consequences, nor is it founded on misconduct, then it would be a case of termination simpliciter. On the other hand, an assessment of remarks pertaining to the discharge of duties during the probationary period, even without a finding of misconduct and termination on the basis of such remarks or assessment will be by way of punishment because such remarks or assessment would be stigmatic.

In deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form, the bench said.

In case of Sarita, the bench said, the complaints referred to by the high court should not stand as a hurdle in any holistic consideration in favour of her as neither did they speak about her capabilities as a judicial officer nor did 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.

In its judgment, the court said the freedom from discrimination or equal protection of the laws during pregnancy and maternity of a woman are precious rights for women workforce. 

"If pregnancy results in the birth of a child, it brings not only joy to the parents of the child but also a sense of fulfilment to the young mother. On the other hand, a pregnancy miscarriage has deep physical, mental and psychological aftereffects on a woman. Miscarriage is generally defined as a loss of pregnancy before viability," it said. 

The court pointed out that the psychological consequences include an increase in the risk of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, sometimes leading to suicide.

The court pointed out rthat ecurrent miscarriage leads to obstetrics complications and long-term health problems. 

"Although there is varying amount of physical aftereffects including backache and abdominal pain involved in miscarriages, the psychological and social effects may be more severe and long lasting. A miscarriage affects a person’s identity, leading to disappointments and challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma and isolation, amongst other aspects. A number of risk factors predisposing women to experience significant psychological distress following miscarriage have also been identified. There could be psychiatric illness and a previous pregnancy loss could lead to increase in chances of severe psychological distress," the bench said.

Case Title: Sarita Choudhary Vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another