The Supreme Court has flagged a disturbing trend among judges issuing numerous judicial orders just before retirement. Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, likened this practice to a batter “hitting sixes in the final overs” of a cricket match.
This observation arose while the Supreme Court considered a petition from a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh. The judge challenged his suspension, which occurred a mere ten days before his planned retirement.
Justice Kant described the trend as ‘unfortunate,’ emphasizing the growing pattern of judges rushing to finalize orders shortly before exiting the judiciary. “The petitioner started hitting sixes just before retirement. I do not want to elaborate further,” remarked the Chief Justice.
The Bench also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi.
Suspension Before Retirement
The suspended judicial officer was set to retire on November 30, but he faced suspension on November 19. This suspension followed a Full Court decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, allegedly based on two judicial orders passed shortly before his retirement.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, defending the petitioner, argued that the judge maintained an exemplary service record, consistently receiving high Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). He contended that disciplinary action against a judicial officer simply for passing judicial orders was untenable.
“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders that are appealable and can be corrected by higher courts?” Sanghi queried during the proceedings.
Judicial Error vs Misconduct
The Supreme Court concurred with the argument, stating that usually, disciplinary actions do not arise from judicial errors. However, Justice Kant further questioned, “What if the orders are palpably dishonest?” This raised crucial distinctions between a genuine judicial error and actual misconduct.
On November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to extend the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years, thereby altering the retirement timeline of the petitioner to November 30, 2026.
Justice Kant noted that the judicial officer was unaware of the retirement age extension at the time of issuing the disputed orders.
Approach to High Court
The Bench questioned why the judicial officer did not seek redress by approaching the High Court. Sanghi explained that because the suspension derived from a Full Court decision, the petitioner deemed it suitable to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
The Court recognized that Full Court decisions had been overturned by High Courts previously in various judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court criticized the officer for attempting to obtain information about his suspension through requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “A senior judicial officer should not resort to the RTI route. Submitting a representation is more appropriate,” commented the Bench.
Relief Declined, Liberty Granted
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to grant immediate relief but allowed the judicial officer the liberty to submit a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking the recall of his suspension order.
The Bench mandated the High Court to consider and resolve the representation within a span of four weeks. This entailed crucial deliberation over the procedural norms and the judicial conduct of officers as they approach retirement.
