India's Supreme Court has said that judges should stay off social media and avoid sharing opinions about their judgments online. The court emphasized that being a judge requires a life of simplicity and complete dedication to the job.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these remarks during a case about the termination of two women judges by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court noted that the judiciary is not a place for showing off or seeking attention.
Senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the dismissed judges, agreed with the court. He stated that no judge should use Facebook for work-related matters. The court’s comments came after senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as an amicus curiae, mentioned a Facebook post by one of the dismissed judges, which had led to complaints against her.
Why were the women judges dismissed?
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had dismissed the judges, citing poor performance. However, the Supreme Court criticized the decision, saying the health issues of one of the judges, including a miscarriage, were not considered. In a powerful remark, the court said, “Wish men had menstruation.”
This issue was part of a larger case involving the termination of six women judges over alleged unsatisfactory performance. The Supreme Court took notice of the matter on November 11, 2023, and later, on August 1, the MP High Court reinstated four of the judges under certain conditions. However, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary were not reinstated.
Personal struggles and performance issues
The two dismissed judges had joined the Madhya Pradesh judicial service in 2018 and 2017. The MP High Court reported that Sharma’s performance ratings dropped from "very good" in 2019-20 to "average" and "poor" in later years. She also had about 1,500 pending cases in 2022, with a low disposal rate of fewer than 200 cases.
Sharma explained that her miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis had affected her work. The Supreme Court pointed out that it was unfair to assess the judges’ performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, the state law department issued termination orders in June 2023 after the administrative committee and full court deemed their probation unsatisfactory.
Legal challenge to the dismissal
One of the dismissed judges filed a plea, arguing that her termination violated her constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. Her advocate, Charu Mathur, stated that her four years of service had been unblemished, with no adverse remarks. She also argued that proper procedures were not followed in the dismissal.
The plea highlighted that excluding maternity and childcare leave from performance evaluations was unjust. It stated that these leaves are fundamental rights for women and their infants, and evaluating performance during this time violated their rights to equality and personal liberty.
Source: Inputs from Hindustan Times and PTI
bd-pratidin/Rafid
