In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to terminate the services of women judges, citing performance issues while ignoring the mental and physical ailments they faced, including miscarriage. Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked during the hearing, “I wish men had menstruation; then they would understand.”

Case Background

The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh, was hearing a case concerning the termination of two women judicial officers. The controversy stems from the dismissal of six judges during their probation period in 2023 by the Madhya Pradesh government. While four were reinstated after a review, two—Aditi Sharma among them—remain terminated, challenging the decision in court.

The Case of Aditi Sharma

The court reviewed Sharma’s performance since her 2019 appointment and found her consistently rated as a judicial officer with commendable capabilities. However, during her tenure, she faced several personal challenges: A miscarriage. COVID-19 infection. Her brother’s cancer diagnosis. Despite these difficulties, the administrative committee of the High Court cited her "unsatisfactory" performance during the probation period, focusing on her disposal rate of cases.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench criticized the criteria used to evaluate the performance of women judges, particularly ignoring their physical and mental health struggles. Justice Nagarathna remarked, “Have the same kind of criteria for male judges, and let’s see how many are terminated.” The court highlighted that dismissing judges without considering their circumstances undermines the judiciary's values.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized, “Judges are not just an auxiliary system. If they are suffering physically and mentally, you can’t just dismiss them. Particularly for women, sensitivity is paramount.”

Termination Criteria Questioned

The High Court cited Sharma's low case disposal rate, including only two civil cases disposed of in a year, as a significant factor for her termination. The court also pointed out underperformance during the COVID-19 period. However, the Supreme Court countered that these metrics failed to account for her health struggles.

What’s Next?

The Supreme Court had previously asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reassess its decision regarding the terminated judges. The case continues, with the apex court seeking greater accountability and gender sensitivity in judicial evaluations.

This case highlights systemic challenges faced by women in the judiciary and broader professional settings. The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore the need for equitable and empathetic evaluation processes, particularly in cases involving personal and health-related struggles.