New Delhi: The Supreme Court has objected to the “growing trend” of judges passing “so many orders” just before they retire, equating it to a batter “hitting sixes” in the final overs of a match.
An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant was hearing a plea of a Madhya Pradesh principal and district judge challenging a full court decision of the high court to suspend him just 10 days before his scheduled retirement allegedly over some questionable judicial orders.
“Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,” the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, observed on Wednesday.
“There is a growing trend of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” the CJI said.
The Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, who was due to retire on November 30, was suspended on November 19, allegedly because of two judicial orders passed by him.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing on his behalf, submitted that he had an impeccable service record with consistently high ratings in his annual confidential reports.
Sanghi questioned the legality of the suspension, arguing that judicial officers cannot be subjected to disciplinary action merely for passing judicial orders.
“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by the higher judiciary?” he asked.
The bench agreed in principle, observing that disciplinary proceedings cannot ordinarily be initiated against a judicial officer for erroneous orders.
“He cannot be suspended for this. But what if the orders are palpably dishonest?” the CJI asked, drawing a distinction between judicial error and misconduct.
The CJI also noted that on November 20, the top court had directed the Madhya Pradesh government to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years.
As a result, the judicial officer is now set to retire on November 30, 2026.
The CJI also pointed out that the officer was unaware of the extension of the retirement age at the time he passed the disputed orders.
The bench also asked why the officer had not approached the high court to challenge the suspension.
Sanghi responded that since the suspension was based on a full court decision, the officer believed it would be more appropriate to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.
The bench then observed that full court decisions have been set aside by High Courts in judicial proceedings on several occasions.
Additionally, the court took exception to the officer seeking details of his suspension through applications under the Right to Information Act.
“It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information. He could have submitted a representation,” it said.
Declining to entertain the petition, the bench granted liberty to the judicial officer to make a representation before the high court seeking recall of the suspension order.
The bench directed the high court to consider and decide the representation within four weeks.
