New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court over its handling of the dismissal of women judges in the state, particularly one judge who faced termination despite being pregnant and suffering a miscarriage during the evaluation period. The case revolves around allegations of poor performance against the judges, sparking concerns about insensitivity and gender bias in the evaluation process.
Justice BV Nagarathna, a member of the two-judge bench presiding over the case, strongly criticized the criteria employed for the dismissals. “I hope such standards are also applied to male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this,” she remarked, denouncing the High Court’s lack of sensitivity toward the physical and emotional trauma faced by the woman judge. Highlighting the issue of gender disparity, she further stated, “What is this? I wish men experienced menstruation. Then they would understand what it entails.”
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings in November 2023, demanding an explanation from the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding the standards used to terminate the judges. The judges were on probation, and their performance had reportedly been evaluated based on the number of cases they disposed of during the period.
The controversy dates back to June 2023, when the state law department, acting on the High Court’s recommendation, terminated several judges. However, in August, the High Court reversed its decision for four of them, except for Aditi Kumar Sharma. Sharma’s performance ratings had allegedly declined from “very good” and “good” to “average” and “poor” over subsequent years, which was cited as a reason for her termination.
Sharma, who was on maternity and child care leave during the evaluation period, argued that penalizing her for taking this leave violated her fundamental rights. She contended in her petition that her termination was unjust and unconstitutional, breaching her rights to equality, life, and personal liberty. “Maternity and child care leave is a fundamental right of a woman and also of the infant,” she asserted, emphasizing that using her leave to assess her performance was a gross infringement of her rights.
The case highlights the broader challenge of balancing professional evaluation systems with the realities of gender-specific needs. Legal experts and women’s rights activists have weighed in on the issue, stressing the urgent need to redefine workplace policies to ensure they do not penalize women for exercising their legally protected rights.
Sharma also alleged that her dismissal was carried out without following due process, despite an otherwise unblemished service record spanning four years. Her situation brings into focus the lack of systemic safeguards for women professionals, particularly those in high-stress and demanding roles like the judiciary.
The apex court’s remarks have sparked nationwide discussions on gender sensitivity in the workplace and the judiciary’s responsibility to set an example of fairness. Observers have pointed out that the judiciary, as an institution that interprets laws protecting women’s rights, must hold itself to the highest standards of equity and inclusivity.
As the case unfolds, it is expected to have far-reaching implications, not just for the reinstatement of the dismissed judges but also for the formulation of policies that uphold the rights of women in the workforce. Advocates for change have called for the adoption of gender-neutral evaluation criteria and robust mechanisms to address grievances related to maternity and caregiving responsibilities.
This case is seen as a crucial moment in the ongoing struggle for gender equality in professional spaces, with the potential to set significant precedents for how institutions handle such sensitive matters in the future.
