The Supreme Court of India has raised alarms regarding a growing trend among judges who issue numerous judicial orders right before their retirement, a phenomenon compared to a batter ‘hitting sixes’ during the final overs of a cricket match. This statement emerged while a bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant, heard the case of a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh, who contested his suspension just ten days prior to his scheduled retirement.
In unequivocal terms, CJI Justice Surya Kant stated, “It is an unfortunate trend. There is a growing tendency of judges passing so many orders just before retirement.” The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, expressed frustration over this increase in last-minute judicial activity.
The judge involved, who was due to retire on November 30, faced suspension on November 19 following a Full Court decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The suspension was reportedly a result of two judicial orders he issued shortly before his retirement.
His counsel, senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, defended the judge by highlighting his impeccable service record, stating he consistently received high ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi argued against taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, questioning, “How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which are appealable and can be corrected by higher courts?”
The Supreme Court acknowledged Sanghi’s points, noting that disciplinary actions typically do not arise from judicial errors. CJI Kant raised a pertinent question regarding the boundary between bona fide judicial error and misconduct, asking, “But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?” This distinction is crucial as it could impact many judicial officers potentially caught in similar circumstances.
Additionally, on November 20, the Supreme Court directed that the retirement age for judicial officers be raised from 60 to 61 years. This change means that the petitioner now has a new retirement date set for November 30, 2026. The CJI pointed out that the judicial officer was unaware of this extension when he passed the challenged orders, further complicating the context of the case.
The bench also interrogated the rationale behind the judge’s choice to bypass the High Court to contest his suspension. Sanghi explained that given the nature of the Full Court decision, the petitioner thought it prudent to directly approach the Supreme Court. However, the bench reminded counsel that High Court decisions on Full Court matters have been nullified in past judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court frowned upon the judicial officer’s attempt to gather information about his suspension using the Right to Information (RTI) Act, stating, “It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route. He could have submitted a representation.” This highlights the expectations for judicial conduct and the proper channels for redress.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not provide immediate relief but granted the judicial officer the liberty to submit a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court requesting the recall of the suspension order. The Court directed that the High Court should consider this appeal and decide on the matter within four weeks.
This growing concern reflects a broader issue within India’s judicial framework, where the actions of judges nearing retirement could overshadow their long-standing service records. The implications of such a trend could reverberate across the judiciary, affecting public perception and institutional integrity.
