The Supreme Court is set to deliberate over a confidential report concerning the termination of two women civil judges from Madhya Pradesh on December 3. The judges were dismissed for alleged unsatisfactory performance, a decision initially made by the state government but now under the apex court’s scrutiny.
In November 2023, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the dismissal of six female judges, leading to a partial reversal of those decisions. On July 23, under the direction of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was asked to reevaluate its decision. Consequently, on August 1, the High Court’s full court reinstated four of the judges—Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—under specific conditions.
However, for the remaining two judges, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, the High Court upheld the termination, agreeing to forward the adverse remarks and additional materials against them to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover for further evaluation.
During a recent hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the dismissed judges, queried whether any new evidence had emerged against her client that warranted a response. The court responded by granting Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal access to the sealed report to prepare for a detailed briefing to the bench in the upcoming session. The counsel for the dismissed judges, however, will not be privy to the report at this stage.
The bench has also issued notices to the High Court registry and the judicial officers who did not contest their dismissals. This judicial scrutiny highlights concerns about the evaluation processes used during the COVID-19 pandemic, which arguably impacted the judges’ ability to meet standard performance metrics, including those taking maternity and child care leaves.
The terminated judges argue that their dismissals violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The controversy particularly touches on the disregard for maternity and child care leave in their performance assessments, which they claim undermines their rights and the rights of their infants, as recognized under established law.
