The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns about a “growing trend” where judges issue numerous judicial orders just before their retirement. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant likened this practice to a batter “hitting sixes in the final overs” of a cricket match, emphasizing its alarming nature.
This observation came during a recent hearing concerning a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh. The judge challenged his suspension, which occurred just ten days prior to his scheduled retirement.
“It is an unfortunate trend. There is a growing tendency of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” the CJI remarked, highlighting the need for scrutiny of such practices. The Bench also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi.
The petitioner, who faced suspension on November 19, had initially been due to retire on November 30. His suspension stemmed from two judicial decisions made shortly before this retirement date.
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi defended the petitioner, claiming an unblemished service record bolstered by consistently high ratings in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi argued that disciplinary actions should not be enforced simply for passing judicial orders that are subject to appeal.
“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which are appealable and can be corrected by higher courts?” Sanghi questioned the legitimacy of the suspension.
The Supreme Court generally aligns with the principle that **disciplinary proceedings** should not initiate for mere judicial errors. CJI Surya Kant stated, “He cannot be suspended for this. But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?” highlighting the distinction between a bona fide judicial mistake and misconduct.
Significantly, on November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to enhance the retirement age for judicial officers from 60 to 61 years. Consequently, the petitioner’s retirement is now extended to November 30, 2026.
The CJI noted that the judicial officer remained unaware of this extension when submitting the controversial orders. The Bench questioned the rationale behind the officer not approaching the High Court to challenge the suspension order directly.
In response, Sanghi clarified that the Full Court decision warranted the petitioner’s direct approach to the Supreme Court, as it effectively prevented him from contesting his suspension in the lower court.
However, the Bench pointed out that High Courts have previously overturned Full Court decisions in various judicial proceedings.
The Court also expressed dissatisfaction regarding the officer’s decision to seek information concerning his suspension through the **Right to Information (RTI)** Act. “It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route. He could have submitted a representation,” the Bench emphasized.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition while permitting the judicial officer to submit a representation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking a recall of the suspension order. The Bench instructed that the High Court must consider this representation promptly.
This case highlights the complexities arising from the relationship between judicial actions and administrative accountability as the legal fraternity navigates the implications of such trends on the justice system.
