Aditi Kumar Sharma, a Civil Judge posted in Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh, has resigned from judicial service in protest against the elevation of a judicial officer she had accused of harassment. Her resignation came just hours after the Central Government approved the appointment of District Judge as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Judge is yet to take oath, but his elevation has triggered serious concerns about the handling of internal complaints within the judiciary.
In her resignation letter submitted to the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Sharma described her decision as a protest against the institutional failure to address her allegations. She said she was stepping down not because she had lost faith in justice itself, but because justice had failed within the very system meant to uphold it. She expressed that her resignation should serve as a lasting record of a woman judge who committed herself fully to justice but was left unsupported by the institution.
Sharma had previously been one of six women judges whose services were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh government in June 2023 during their probation period, citing unsatisfactory performance. The decision was based on the outcome of meetings held by the administrative and full court of the High Court.
The Supreme Court later intervened and ordered the reinstatement of all six judges, including Sharma. The Court had underlined the need for judicial institutions to show sensitivity towards women officers and had emphasised that justice must also be visible within the judiciary itself. Sharma resumed duties in Shahdol in March 2024.
In July 2025, Sharma addressed letters to the President of India and the Supreme Court Collegium, urging them to reconsider Judge’s elevation. She argued that promoting someone against whom serious allegations had been raised without even initiating an inquiry would send a damaging message. Sharma maintained that her concern was not only personal but also about institutional indifference and lack of accountability.
Two other judicial officers had also submitted complaints against the Judge, raising questions about whether due diligence was followed in the elevation process. Despite the written complaints, there is no indication that the High Court initiated any inquiry or sought an explanation from the officer concerned. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his name in early July, and the Centre cleared it on July 28.
Before the clearance of his elevation, the Judge denied all allegations in public remarks. He claimed to have served for over three decades without any complaints and asserted that he had not received any official communication regarding the accusations.
In her resignation letter, Sharma expressed anguish that despite her documented complaints, no inquiry or hearing ever took place. She said the system failed to act, and instead of being held accountable, the officer was rewarded with elevation. She framed her resignation as a statement to highlight the lack of institutional protection for women within the judiciary.
She concluded with a message directed at the institution, stating that the judiciary had failed to stand by one of its own when it mattered the most.
