Supreme Court advises judges to avoid social media usage

The Supreme Court remarked that judges need to lead a hidden life and work tirelessly, advising them to stay away from social media and avoid sharing opinions on judgments. These comments were made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh while they were discussing the case related to the termination of two female judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The top court emphasized that there is no place for flamboyance in the judiciary. They stated that “judicial officers should not go to Facebook” and should refrain from commenting on judgments, as it could bias their future rulings if those judgments are cited later. The bench remarked that being a judicial officer requires significant sacrifice, suggesting they should “live life a hermit” and “work like a horse.”

Senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the terminated women judges, supported this viewpoint, stressing that no judicial officer or judge should post anything related to their judicial work on Facebook.

This discussion arose after senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as amicus curiae, presented various complaints against the terminated woman judge, including the fact that she had made a post on Facebook.

The Supreme Court had previously remarked, “Wish men have menstruation,” criticizing the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to dismiss a woman judge based on performance without considering her circumstances following a miscarriage.

On November 11, 2023, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the termination of six women civil judges by the state government due to alleged unsatisfactory performance.

However, on August 1, a full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court re-evaluated its earlier resolutions and decided to reinstate four judges: Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi, under specific terms and conditions, while the other two, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, were not reinstated.

The Supreme Court was reviewing the cases of the judges who joined the Madhya Pradesh judicial service in 2018 and 2017. 

According to a report from the high court, Sharma’s performance ratings declined from “very good” and “good” in 2019-20 to “average” and “poor” in the following years. By 2022, she reportedly had around 1,500 pending cases, with a disposal rate of less than 200.

The judge shared with the high court that she experienced a miscarriage in 2021, followed by her brother being diagnosed with cancer.

While acknowledging the termination, the bench issued notices to the high court registry and the judicial officers who did not appeal against the termination.

The court pointed out that the judges were terminated even though a proper quantitative assessment of their work could not be conducted due to the Covid outbreak.

“The officers, along with three other female officers, were appointed to the judicial services in Madhya Pradesh. They are claimed to have been terminated primarily because their case disposal did not meet the established standards,” the report mentioned.

The termination orders were issued in June 2023 by the state law department after an administrative committee and a full court meeting assessed their performance during the probation period as “unsatisfactory.”

One of the judges filed an impleadment plea through advocate Charu Mathur, arguing that despite having a four-year record of unblemished service and no negative remarks, she was terminated without any due process being followed.

She claimed that her dismissal from her job infringed upon her fundamental rights as outlined in Articles 14 (the right to equality before the law) and 21 (the right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

In her application, she argued that if her maternity and child care leave were factored into the quantitative assessment of her work, it would be a serious injustice.

“It is well-established that maternity and child care leave constitutes a fundamental right for both the woman and her child. Therefore, assessing the applicant’s performance during her probationary period based on the leave she took for maternity and child care is a significant violation of her fundamental rights,” it stated.