Sensitive work environment for women in the judiciary

Transcript:

Hello everyone and welcome to SCO’s channel. I’m Sai Spandana. This Women’s Day, we are going to be talking about a recent decision of the Supreme Court which emphasised the need for a more sensitive work environment for women in the judiciary.

On 28 February, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh delivered a judgment in Sarita Choudhary v High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The judges ordered the reinstatement of two women civil judges in the state: Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, whose employment was terminated by the High Court in May 2023 along with that of four others.

The top court had taken suo moto cognizance of this issue on the direction of the then Chief Justice in December 2023. The suo moto case was registered in the Supreme Court in January 2024. Since then, four out of the six women officers were reinstated but Choudhary and Sharma were not.

Their case before the court was that the reasons for their termination lacked substance and were punitive, arbitrary and unlawful. They also relied on Article 311(2) which states that a civil servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced by rank without a fair enquiry.

In the judgment, the Court distinguished between a simple termination of employment and a dismissal amounting to a punishment. It reasoned that a punitive termination would cause stigma and affect the candidate’s future prospects. The bench cited Anup Jaiswal v Government of India, a case from 1984 which held that the court could go beyond the written termination order to assess whether it was punishment in disguise.

The judges also cited a case called Deepti Prakash Banerjee v Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre from 1999. In that case, the Court had observed that the stigma caused by a probationer’s termination may be due to observations in the termination order but also through the proceedings which have taken place.

Further, the bench also relied on Parshottam Lal Dhingra v Union of India, a case from 1957 where the Supreme Court held that the safeguards under Article 311 also applied to those under probation if their termination was punitive and had hampered future career prospects. In the present case, the Division Bench reviewed the Officers’ Service Records and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the complaints filed against them.

In Choudhary’s case, the court noted that she had a good overall record despite some inconsistencies in her ACR scores. The bench also observed that some of the complaints against her did not relate to her judicial competence at all. Moreover, the complaints against her were resolved with warnings, which was proof that even the High Court acknowledged that she could “learn with experience.”

In Sharma’s case, her ACR showed a declining performance accompanied by several complaints. But in this case, the top court took into account her difficult personal circumstances, including her brother’s cancer diagnosis and her own miscarriage. The top court deemed it erroneous that the High Court failed to consider her acute medical and emotional hardships.

Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment, also made important observations on greater representation of women in the judiciary. “It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing numbers of female judicial officers,” she wrote, “if we are unable to secure them a sensitive work environment and guidance.” To this end, she noted that it was necessary to ensure that more women enter the field, more women remain in the field and more women progress to higher ranks and posts within the field.

She underscored that while gender is not the basis for leniency, it remains a factor in ensuring fair decision-making, particularly at critical junctures in a woman judicial officer’s career. The representation of women, especially in the higher judiciary, remains abysmal. The top court currently has only two sitting women judges. One of them will retire this year.

In the 25 high courts across the country, only 107 out of 755 judges are women. This is just 14%. This figure has remained unchanged since August last year when we undertook a data study. Now the district judiciary does paint a slightly more optimistic picture. According to the latest State of the Judiciary report, last published in 2023, 36.3% of all judicial officers at the district level were women.

In 2023, then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had pointed out that the gender ratio in the district judiciary was indicative of “changing times.” He said, “What we do today would decide how the judiciary will be 10 to 15 years later.” In an interview with us in November 2023, Justice Nagarathna herself also pointed out that a woman in the legal field must be supported by her family, colleagues and seniors to diversify in her profession and achieve visibility.

“It ultimately depends on the individual and once the woman gets back to the profession after the birth of the children, then she must have the cooperation of her family, her seniors, etc. to move on and diversify in her profession and with experience, if a person is persistent then visibility is there, then obviously such a person will get noted and the bench will recommend her or recommend that person to be a judge.”

Hopefully her emphasis on a sensitive work environment and guidance for women in the field will not be forgotten even after this judgment is outside the news cycle. What did you think about the judgment? How can more sensitivity be ensured for women in the field? Let us know in the comments below.

As always, thank you for tuning in to SCObserver.in. I’ll see you soon!