‘If Only Men Menstruated…’: Supreme Court Criticizes Dismissal of Women Judges in Madhya Pradesh
Pune: PIL Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Immediate Local Body Elections In Maharashtra
Top court questions criteria for termination, highlights gender biases.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court over its decision to terminate six female civil judges, calling for a reassessment of the criteria used in such dismissals. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh voiced concern over the lack of sensitivity towards the physical and mental challenges faced by women in the judiciary.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked, “I wish men had menstruation, then only they would understand.” The comment came while addressing the dismissal of a female civil judge, who faced professional setbacks following a miscarriage and subsequent personal challenges, including a cancer diagnosis in her family. The court emphasized that such conditions warrant a more compassionate evaluation of performance rather than strict adherence to disposal rates.
The hearing pertained to the termination of judges Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, who joined the Madhya Pradesh judicial service in 2018 and 2017, respectively. Both were dismissed in 2023 based on their reported underperformance, with adverse remarks recorded in sealed reports submitted to the Supreme Court. Four of the six judges initially terminated were reinstated in September following earlier intervention by the apex court.
Records showed a significant decline in Sharma’s performance, with her case disposal rate dropping after her miscarriage in 2021. In 2022, she had 1,500 pending cases, earning 44.16 units for civil cases and 269 units for criminal cases—below the mandated benchmarks.
The Bench questioned the validity of uniform performance targets, particularly for judges dealing with personal hardships. Justice Nagarathna observed, “Let there be the same criteria for male judges and judicial officers. We will see then. How can you have target units for district judiciary?”
The court also noted the disparity in treatment, highlighting how women judges’ physical and mental health challenges were overlooked. “It is easy to say case dismissed and go home,” Justice Nagarathna remarked, urging the judiciary to exercise greater empathy.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing Sharma, contended that her client had an impeccable record until personal tragedies affected her performance. She argued that professional rivalries and gender bias played a role in the complaints leading to her dismissal. Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal highlighted concerns over the evaluation process, noting that Sharma’s annual confidential report in 2022 was prepared by a district judge who has since been elevated to the High Court.
The terminated judges argued that their dismissal violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. They claimed that the process lacked transparency and fairness, disproportionately impacting women in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court has sought clarifications from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the criteria for terminating civil judges. The case will be heard further on December 12, 2024.
This case highlights the need for gender-sensitive policies and practices within the judiciary, ensuring equal opportunity and consideration for women facing unique challenges in their personal and professional lives.
