The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over a troubling trend where judges issue multiple orders right before their retirement, likening it to a batter striking sixes in the crucial final overs of a cricket match. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant raised this issue during a hearing of a petition from a Principal District and Sessions Judge in Madhya Pradesh, who contested his suspension just 10 days ahead of his retirement.
“This growing tendency of judges to pass a flurry of orders before retirement is unfortunate,” CJI Kant commented. He emphasized the need for judges to ensure their actions uphold the dignity of their positions, remarking that the petitioner, just before his retirement, engaged in a series of impactful judgements. “I do not want to elaborate further,” the Chief Justice added.
The bench, which included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, listened intently as the case unfolded. The judicial officer, set to retire on November 30, found himself suspended on November 19, following a Full Court decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. His suspension allegedly stemmed from two orders he passed shortly before his scheduled retirement.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the suspended judge, defended the officer’s distinguished service history, highlighting that the petitioner maintained a spotless record and routinely received high ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi questioned the rationale behind the disciplinary action aimed at a judge merely for executing his judicial responsibilities, which are appealable and subject to higher court review.
“How can an officer be suspended for passing judicial orders which are appealable?” Sanghi questioned, pressing for a distinction between genuine judicial error and misconduct. The Supreme Court seemed to agree, stating that usually, disciplinary procedures do not arise from judicial errors. However, CJI Kant posed a critical counterpoint: “What if the orders are palpably dishonest?” illustrating the fine line between judicial error and intentional misconduct.
On November 20, the Supreme Court increased the retirement age for judicial officers from 60 to 61 years. This change meant that, following this extension, the suspended officer would now retire on November 30, 2026. CJI Kant noted that the judge was unaware of this extension when he issued his disputed orders.
The bench probed further, asking why the officer had opted not to challenge his suspension in the High Court. Sanghi explained that, given the suspension’s basis was a Full Court decision, the petitioner deemed it more appropriate to turn to the Supreme Court.
Despite this, the bench pointed out that numerous Full Court decisions have faced scrutiny and reversal in past judicial proceedings. Moreover, the Court expressed its disapproval regarding the officer’s use of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to inquire about his suspension, noting, “It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route. He should have submitted a representation instead.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition, granting the officer the liberty to submit a representation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court for the suspension’s recall. Furthermore, the bench directed the High Court to deliberate and reach a decision on this representation within four weeks.
