The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over what it termed a “growing trend” of judicial officers passing a high volume of orders in the final days of their service, comparing the behavior to a cricketer “hitting sixes” in the final overs of a match.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judge. The officer was challenging a suspension order issued by the High Court just ten days before his scheduled retirement.
The petitioner, a senior judicial officer in Madhya Pradesh, was set to retire on November 30, 2024. However, on November 19, the High Court’s full court decided to suspend him following allegations related to “questionable” judicial orders passed during the twilight of his career.
Representing the officer, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi argued that his client possessed an “impeccable service record” with consistently high ratings in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). He contended that a judicial officer should not face disciplinary action for merely passing judicial orders, as such orders are subject to correction by higher courts through appeals.
The bench was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s administrative decision at this stage.
“Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,” CJI Surya Kant observed during the hearing. He further noted, “There is a growing trend of judges passing so many orders just before retirement.”
When the counsel questioned the legality of suspending an officer over judicial orders, the CJI drew a sharp distinction between legal error and potential misconduct.
“He cannot be suspended for this [erroneous orders]. But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?” the CJI asked, highlighting the High Court’s prerogative to investigate the integrity behind such decisions.
The case took an interesting turn regarding the officer’s retirement age. On November 20, a day after the suspension, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to increase the retirement age for judicial officers from 60 to 61 years. Consequently, the petitioner’s new retirement date is now November 30, 2026.
The CJI pointed out that the officer was likely unaware of this impending extension when he passed the disputed orders.
The Court also took exception to the officer’s method of seeking information about his suspension. The judge had filed applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to obtain details of the proceedings against him.
“It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information. He could have submitted a representation,” the bench remarked.
Declining to entertain the writ petition directly, the Supreme Court noted that the officer should have first approached the High Court. While the counsel argued that the decision was taken by a “Full Court,” the bench noted that High Courts frequently set aside Full Court decisions in judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court granted the judicial officer the liberty to submit a formal representation to the High Court seeking a recall of his suspension. The High Court has been directed to consider and decide upon this representation within four weeks.
