The Supreme Court criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for sacking Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma, stating that her termination ignored the significant mental and physical trauma she endured following a miscarriage.

On November 11, 2023, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the dismissal of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh state government due to alleged unsatisfactory performance.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma was dismissed in June 2023 after her performance ratings plummeted from "very good" and "good" during 2019-20 to "average" and "poor" in the subsequent years. The decline, however, coincided with significant personal setbacks, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.

The termination was part of the Madhya Pradesh government's broader dismissal of six women civil judges over alleged unsatisfactory performance. Four of these judges—Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—were later reinstated under specific terms on August 1, 2023, while Sharma and another judge, Sarita Chaudhary, were excluded.

SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued notices to the High Court registry and other judicial officers involved in the dismissals, especially those who did not challenge the termination.

The Supreme Court questioned the fairness of the assessment criteria applied to Sharma, especially as a quantitative evaluation of her performance could not be conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Referring to her personal struggles, the court emphasized the need for empathy and gender sensitivity in such cases.

"The mental and physical trauma of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage cannot be ignored," Justice Nagarathna stated, adding that such criteria should also be uniformly applied to male judges. The bench sought clarification from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on its decision-making process.

According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court registry, the officers were terminated primarily for failing to meet case disposal standards. The orders, issued by the state law department in June 2023, followed recommendations from an administrative committee and a full court meeting, which deemed their probationary performance "unsatisfactory."

However, a plea filed by advocate Charu Mathur on behalf of one of the judges contested the decision, arguing that despite a four-year unblemished service record with no adverse remarks, the termination occurred without due process.

The plea also alleged that the dismissal violated the judge's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Josna Lewis/MSM)