Supreme Court: Low Disposal Rate Alone Not Sufficient Grounds for Judge’s Dismissal

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these observations while overturning the termination of two judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma. The officers were removed from service through a resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in May 2023.

The Supreme Court noted that their removal was primarily based on adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), low case disposal rates, and unresolved complaints. However, the Court found that the officers were not given a fair opportunity to present their side before their dismissal. The assessment of their performance failed to consider systemic hurdles such as a shortage of judges, frequent interim applications, absentee witnesses, and administrative inefficiencies.

The Bench stressed that while judicial officers are expected to meet performance benchmarks, external circumstances play a crucial role in their ability to dispose of cases efficiently. The Court remarked that the records did not indicate a pattern of consistent poor performance on the part of the petitioners. Instead, the evidence suggested that their work had been affected by external obstacles beyond their control.

Unfair Performance Assessment

One of the significant findings of the Court was that the evaluation process had been unfair due to its failure to consider broader circumstances. The Court highlighted that no previous reports had indicated concerns regarding the officers’ health or the quality of their work. Despite this, the officers were downgraded based solely on their disposal rates, which the Court deemed an unreasonable criterion.

Referring specifically to Aditi Kumar Sharma’s case, the Court observed that she had experienced severe health setbacks, including a serious bout of COVID-19 and a miscarriage. However, these factors were disregarded in her performance evaluation. Her ACR rating was lowered from “B-Very Good” to “C-Good” purely on the grounds of low case disposal, without any consideration of her medical and emotional hardships.

Similarly, the Court noted that Sarita Choudhary had been accused of insubordination, but no concrete evidence had been provided to justify this claim. The Court criticized the High Court for not giving due weight to the difficult circumstances under which the officers were working, stating that the failure to acknowledge such factors amounted to an unfair assessment.

Judicial Institutions Must Recognize Challenges Faced by Women Judges

Beyond the individual cases of the two petitioners, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to address broader concerns about gender representation and biases within the judiciary. The Bench underscored the importance of ensuring that judicial institutions adopt a more sensitive approach toward women judges, particularly in matters related to pregnancy, health conditions, and systemic discrimination.

The judgment highlighted the need to break gender stereotypes and create a more inclusive legal system. It emphasized that increasing the number of women in the judiciary—especially at higher levels—could contribute to changing societal perceptions regarding gender roles.

“Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women,” the Court stated.

Additionally, the Supreme Court referenced India’s international commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Court noted that as a signatory to this convention, India is obligated to protect women in the workforce, particularly concerning pregnancy and maternity rights.

The Emotional Toll of a Miscarriage and Need for Compassion in Judicial Evaluations

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment was the Court’s recognition of the emotional toll of miscarriage on a woman’s professional and personal life. The Bench observed that a miscarriage is not just a physical event but a deeply distressing experience that can lead to emotional distress, societal stigma, and identity challenges.

“A miscarriage affects a person’s identity, leading to disappointments and challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma, and isolation, amongst other aspects,” the Court remarked.

Given this, the Court stressed the need for judicial bodies to adopt a more compassionate and holistic approach when assessing the performance of female judicial officers. It stated that ignoring such personal hardships in performance evaluations could contribute to systemic injustice.

Reinstatement and Future Proceedings

Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate reinstatement of Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma within 15 days. The Court also directed that their past service be counted toward pensionary and other benefits. Furthermore, any pending complaints against them, which had remained unresolved due to their termination, would now have to be adjudicated as per legal procedures.

The ruling serves as a crucial precedent in ensuring fair treatment of judicial officers and highlights the importance of considering systemic and personal challenges in performance assessments. It reinforces the principle that judicial efficiency must be evaluated holistically rather than relying on rigid numerical benchmarks such as case disposal rates. The decision also strengthens the call for greater gender sensitivity and representation in the judiciary, advocating for policies that recognize the unique challenges faced by women judges.