The Supreme Court of India has raised alarms over a concerning trend where judges issue numerous orders just before retirement. This practice, described by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant as akin to a batter ‘hitting sixes in the final overs’ in cricket, has now drawn the court’s scrutiny.
This observation surfaced during a hearing concerning a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh. The judge challenged his suspension imposed merely ten days ahead of his retirement.
“It is an unfortunate trend. There is a growing tendency of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” commented the CJI during the proceedings. Accompanying him on the bench were Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi.
Suspension Facing Judicial Scrutiny
The judge faced suspension on November 19, just 11 days ahead of his retirement date on November 30. This decision arose from the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Full Court, reportedly based on two judicial orders he issued shortly before his retirement.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the petitioner, asserted that the judge had an impeccable record in his service, consistently excelling in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi argued that disciplinary measures should not arise due to judicial orders that hold the power of appeal in higher courts.
“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which are appealable and can be corrected by higher courts?” Sanghi questioned, highlighting an essential principle of judicial conduct.
Judicial Integrity vs Misconduct
The Supreme Court, while agreeing in principle, stated that disciplinary procedures typically do not initiate based solely on judicial errors. CJI Kant questioned the boundary between genuine judicial error and misconduct, stating, “He cannot be suspended for this. But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?”
The Bench acknowledged a crucial development; on November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to enhance judicial officers’ retirement age from 60 to 61 years. As a result, the petitioner is now poised to retire on November 30, 2026.
At the hearing, the CJI noted that the judge likely remained unaware of this change when passing the disputed orders.
Legal Pathways and Representation
The Bench questioned why the suspended officer had not made an approach to the High Court regarding his suspension. Sanghi explained that due to the decision made by the Full Court, the petitioner deemed it more appropriate to directly approach the Supreme Court.
However, the Justices pointed out instances in the past where High Courts have overturned Full Court decisions in judicial proceedings.
The Court voiced its disapproval of the officer opting to seek information about his suspension through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route. He could have submitted a representation,” the Bench remarked, emphasizing the traditional and formal avenues available to judicial officers.
Supreme Court’s Directive
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition outright but granted the judicial officer the liberty to submit a representation requesting a recall of the suspension order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Bench instructed the High Court to consider and decide on this representation within four weeks.
This recent development raises crucial questions about the integrity of judicial processes and the implications of actions taken by officers in the final days of their tenure. As the judicial landscape continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s stance reflects a commitment to maintaining the ethical standards expected of judicial officers.
