The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to reinstate two women judges in Madhya Pradesh underscores the urgent need for a judicial system that is not only fair and impartial but also empathetic towards the challenges faced by women in the legal profession. The judges had been dismissed from service based on adverse reports by the High Court, a decision that the apex court found to be punitive, arbitrary, and illegal. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, pointed out that the High Court reports did not indicate a pattern of consistently poor performance. Instead, the reports contained observations that should have warranted a more measured and sensitive approach, particularly given the unique hardships one of the judges had endured.
The Supreme Court noted that one of the dismissed judges had suffered severe health and personal setbacks, including hospitalization due to COVID-19 and a subsequent miscarriage. Despite these challenges, the High Court had failed to consider her circumstances, making its decision appear not only harsh but also lacking in sensitivity and fairness. The apex court stressed that while gender should not serve as an excuse for poor performance, it is crucial to acknowledge that women judges often have to navigate significant physical, psychological, and social pressures in their roles.
In delivering its verdict, the court ruled that the termination orders were not only punitive but also stigmatic in nature. It, therefore, quashed the High Court’s dismissal orders, along with the administrative reports and government directives that had upheld the judges' removal. However, the court clarified that while the two reinstated judges would not be entitled to salaries for the period they were out of service, they would retain their seniority and pensionary benefits. Furthermore, it directed that they must be reinstated within 15 days, with full recognition of their original seniority status.
Beyond the individual cases, the Supreme Court’s judgment carried broader implications for gender representation in the judiciary. It emphasized that merely increasing the number of female judicial officers is insufficient if they are not provided with a work environment that is both supportive and conducive to their professional growth. The judgment reiterated that greater representation of women in the judiciary would enhance the quality of decision-making, particularly in cases affecting women, and would contribute to a more balanced and just legal system.
The case stemmed from a suo moto action initiated by the Supreme Court last year concerning the termination of six judges by the Madhya Pradesh government in 2023. Four of those judges had already been reinstated in September 2023, and with this latest ruling, all six have now been restored to their positions. This verdict serves as a significant step toward ensuring fairness and accountability in the judicial system while reinforcing the importance of gender sensitivity in evaluating judicial performance.
