The Supreme Court of India raised an eyebrow over the increasing trend of judges issuing multiple orders immediately before their retirement, comparing it to a cricket player “hitting sixes in the final overs”. This observation came during a hearing led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant.
The case involved a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh, who faced suspension just ten days prior to his retirement date. CJI Surya Kant characterized this behaviour as “unfortunate”, highlighting the growing incidence of such decisions correlating with judges’ retirements.
Justice Kant stated, “It is a sad trend. We witness an influx of orders just before retirement.” The bench included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, who echoed similar concerns during the proceedings.
The judge in question, scheduled to retire on November 30, was suspended on November 19, following a Full Court decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This suspension based on two judicial orders issued shortly before his impending retirement prompted the current legal challenge.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi represented the petitioner, asserting his client’s exemplary service record and regular high ratings in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi contended that a judge’s discipline should not hinge on the passing of judicial orders, which are subject to appeal.
“How can an officer face suspension for order decisions which higher courts can evaluate?” Sanghi questioned, urging the court to reconsider the suspension.
The Supreme Court acknowledged Sanghi’s stance, maintaining that disciplinary actions typically do not arise from mere judicial errors. However, CJI Kant permitted an examination of potential dishonest conduct. “What if the orders are patently dishonest?” he queried, making a critical distinction between genuine judicial mistakes and misconduct.
On November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to raise the retirement age for judges from 60 to 61. As a result, the petitioner’s retirement extends to November 30, 2026. The CJI highlighted that the officer did not possess knowledge of this judicial mandate when issuing the disputed orders.
The apex court panel questioned the rationale behind the officer not appealing to the High Court regarding his suspension. Sanghi responded, explaining that the decision stemmed from a Full Court verdict, making a direct Supreme Court appeal seem more appropriate.
Despite the argument, the bench recalled instances where High Courts have overturned Full Court decisions in past cases.
Additionally, the Court expressed reservations over the officer’s methodology, noting his use of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to inquire about suspension details. CJI Kant commented, “It is not fitting for a senior judicial officer to use RTI for such information. He should have raised a representation instead.”
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to provide immediate relief, allowing the judicial officer to submit a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court for recall of the suspension order.
The bench directed the High Court to consider and resolve the matter within four weeks, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to proper judicial processes. This case reflects a broader discussion within the judiciary regarding the responsibilities and conduct of judges as they approach retirement.
