Supreme Court reprimands Madhya Pradesh High Court over termination of women judicial officers, wishes men underwent menstruation
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its strong displeasure over termination of two female judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the basis of their performance, while not taking into consideration the mental and physical ailment suffered by the judge due to miscarriage.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh further sought clarification from the High Court over the decision, while hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg submitted that one of the lady officers had consistently performed poorly, and managed to dispose of only two civil suits in a year.
He further said that during the Covid-19 period, although the unit criteria for assessment of performance was suspended, the disposal rate of the female civil judge remained under average. For the year 2021, the petitioner earned only 1.36 unit.
Since the pandemic had just passed, the criteria was that whatever was earned would be doubled but still her disposal rate remained so.
The top court of the country had initiated the case after six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On its directions, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier agreed to reinstate four female judicial officers. The two lady officers then moved the Court seeking a remedy against termination.
After perusing the records, Justice Nagarathna noted that the lady judicial officer had suffered a miscarriage and was not able to perform due to her bad mental health.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising said that the female judge was diagnosed with Covid-19. Not only that, her real brother suffered from cancer.
Justice Nagarathna said that she hoped such criteria was also imposed on male judges. The mental and physical ailment of a lady who got pregnant and suffered miscarriage was completely ignored. Wish men also had menstruation. Only then they would have understood the pain, she added.
Following these remarks, the Counsel representing the High Court submitted that he would not argue any further on this case.
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal and Senior Advocate Jaising submitted that the complaints filed against the lady judicial officer were kept in abeyance and no conclusion was reached on it.
The complaints, however, were taken into consideration by the full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while holding that she could not be reinstated.
They added that adverse remarks about her performance, based on which her termination took place, were made by the inspection judge from Ratlam (administrative judge) and not by the Principal District Judge in Satna, where she was posted. They further submitted that these remarks were informed after the termination.
Jaising argued that the lady officer had received good and very good remarks in her ACR, but the inspection judge gave her an ‘average remark,’ which affected her assessment.
The Apex Court has listed the matter for further hearing on December 12.
The post appeared first on .
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its strong displeasure over termination of two female judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the basis of their performance, while not taking into consideration the mental and physical ailment suffered by the judge due to miscarriage.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh further sought clarification from the High Court over the decision, while hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg submitted that one of the lady officers had consistently performed poorly, and managed to dispose of only two civil suits in a year.
He further said that during the Covid-19 period, although the unit criteria for assessment of performance was suspended, the disposal rate of the female civil judge remained under average. For the year 2021, the petitioner earned only 1.36 unit.
Since the pandemic had just passed, the criteria was that whatever was earned would be doubled but still her disposal rate remained so.
The top court of the country had initiated the case after six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On its directions, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier agreed to reinstate four female judicial officers. The two lady officers then moved the Court seeking a remedy against termination.
After perusing the records, Justice Nagarathna noted that the lady judicial officer had suffered a miscarriage and was not able to perform due to her bad mental health.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising said that the female judge was diagnosed with Covid-19. Not only that, her real brother suffered from cancer.
Justice Nagarathna said that she hoped such criteria was also imposed on male judges. The mental and physical ailment of a lady who got pregnant and suffered miscarriage was completely ignored. Wish men also had menstruation. Only then they would have understood the pain, she added.
Following these remarks, the Counsel representing the High Court submitted that he would not argue any further on this case.
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal and Senior Advocate Jaising submitted that the complaints filed against the lady judicial officer were kept in abeyance and no conclusion was reached on it.
The complaints, however, were taken into consideration by the full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while holding that she could not be reinstated.
They added that adverse remarks about her performance, based on which her termination took place, were made by the inspection judge from Ratlam (administrative judge) and not by the Principal District Judge in Satna, where she was posted. They further submitted that these remarks were informed after the termination.
Jaising argued that the lady officer had received good and very good remarks in her ACR, but the inspection judge gave her an ‘average remark,’ which affected her assessment.
The Apex Court has listed the matter for further hearing on December 12.
The post appeared first on .