‘Arbitrary and illegal’: SC sets aside 2 judicial officers’ termination

New Delhi: Freedom from discrimination and equal protection under the law during pregnancy and maternity are precious rights for women in the workforce, the Supreme Court emphasised on Friday, issuing a key ruling to strengthen protections for women in the judiciary.

Reinstating two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh who were dismissed in 2023 over allegations of misconduct and inefficiency, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma underlined that mere numerical representation of women in the judiciary is not sufficient unless they are provided a “sensitive work environment and guidance.”

Drawing parallels with its past rulings on gender equality, the court observed that discrimination against women -- direct or systemic -- must be addressed at every level of the workforce, including the judiciary.

In its ruling, the court emphasised that women’s participation in the judiciary must be seen in a holistic manner, covering their entry into the profession, their retention and their advancement to senior positions.

“The freedom from discrimination or equal protection of the laws during pregnancy and maternity of a woman are precious rights for the women workforce,” noted the bench, acknowledging the physical, mental and emotional toll that pregnancy and miscarriage can have on women.

One of the judicial officers in the case suffered from severe Covid-19 complications and a miscarriage in 2021. Senior advocate Indira Jaising appeared for her. Senior counsel Gaurav Agrawal assisted the court as amicus curiae.

Despite these health struggles, her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) was downgraded from “B – Very Good” to “C – Good,” solely based on case pendency and disposal rates. The court found that the high court failed to consider her medical and emotional challenges, stating that gender considerations should sometimes be factored into holistic decision-making.

“While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer,” the court stated.

The other judicial officer was terminated owing to a poor disposal rate of cases, coupled with an array of complaints by lawyers regarding her court room conduct.   

Referring to international conventions such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the court reaffirmed India’s obligations to prevent discrimination based on maternity and ensure equal work opportunities for women.

The ruling reiterated that gender diversity in the judiciary improves the quality of judicial decision-making and encourages more women to seek justice. The judgment cited previous landmark cases such as Ministry of Defence Vs Babita Puniya (2020), where the court struck down outdated gender stereotypes that women were incapable of handling physically demanding tasks in the armed forces; and Nitisha Vs Indian Army (2021), where the court advanced the doctrine of indirect discrimination, recognising how structural biases may appear neutral but disproportionately disadvantage women.

“Much like ‘it is not enough to proudly state that women officers are allowed to serve the nation in the armed forces,’ it is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to secure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance,” the court underscored.

The Supreme Court found the termination of the two judicial officers to be arbitrary and punitive, observing that their adverse ACRs were either not communicated in time or not reviewed properly after their explanations were submitted. The court also noted that there were inherent contradictions in the officers’ performance records, which did not reflect consistent poor performance as cited by the high court. Furthermore, complaints against them, which may have been pending or closed with mere advisories, were improperly used as grounds for dismissal without affording them an opportunity to respond.

Declaring the termination orders illegal, the court reinstated the officers with all consequential benefits, directing that their probation be declared from the date their juniors were confirmed. While they will not receive salary for the period between their termination and reinstatement, their monetary benefits will be calculated notionally for pensionary purposes. The court further ordered that they be reinstated within 15 days in accordance with their seniority and that any pending complaints against them be dealt with in accordance with the law.

This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on women’s equal workplace rights. In April 2024, the Supreme Court had underscored that the participation of women in the workforce is not a privilege but a constitutional requirement. It held that policies like child-care leave must be designed to ensure women are not forced to choose between motherhood and career progression.

Similarly, in August 2022, another bench held that maternity leave must be seen as a “natural incident of life” and not as a workplace disruption, urging employers to facilitate women’s employment rather than hinder it.