‘Judges hitting sixes before retiring’: SC flags ‘unfortunate trend’, questions last moment orders

The bench agreed in principle, noting that disciplinary action cannot ordinarily be initiated against a judicial officer for passing erroneous orders

In an unusual and candid observation on alleged corruption within the judiciary, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday flagged what it described as a growing pattern of judges passing a flurry of orders for extraneous reasons just before retirement, a Times of India report said on Thursday.

The remarks came while the court was hearing a petition filed by a principal district judge from Madhya Pradesh, who has challenged his suspension barely 10 days before his scheduled retirement. The suspension was reportedly linked to two judicial orders passed by him shortly before he was due to superannuate, The Times of India said.

During the hearing, the bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petitioner appeared to have become unusually active in issuing orders on the eve of retirement. "Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it," the CJI remarked, as quoted by The Times of India.

Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for the judicial officer, told the court that the petitioner had an otherwise stellar service record, backed by consistently high ratings in his annual confidential reports, The Times of India reported. Sanghi pointed out that the officer was due to retire on November 30 but was suspended on November 19, ostensibly over two judicial orders.

Questioning the basis of the suspension, Sanghi argued that judicial officers cannot be proceeded against merely for the content of their orders, which are always subject to appeal and correction by higher courts. "How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by higher judiciary?" he asked, The Times of India said.

The bench agreed in principle, noting that disciplinary action cannot ordinarily be initiated against a judicial officer for passing erroneous orders. However, the court added a caveat, observing that the situation would be different if the orders were "palpably dishonest", The Times of India reported.

The case also touched upon a related issue involving the officer's retirement. The judge was initially slated to retire on November 30, but on November 20, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to defer his retirement by a year, after noting that the state had enhanced the retirement age of its employees to 62 years, The Times of India said. As a result, the officer is now expected to retire on November 30, 2026.

The CJI noted that the judicial officer was unaware of the extension in the retirement age when he passed the two contentious orders. At the same time, the bench reiterated its concern over what it described as a trend of judges issuing multiple orders just before demitting office, The Times of India reported.

The bench also questioned why the petitioner had not approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court to challenge his suspension. In response, Sanghi submitted that since the suspension was based on a full court decision, the judicial officer believed it would be more appropriate to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court for an impartial hearing, The Times of India said.

Rejecting this contention, the bench observed that there were several instances where full court decisions had been overturned by high courts in judicial proceedings. The judges also expressed displeasure over the petitioner seeking details of his suspension through applications under the Right to Information Act, The Times of India reported.

"It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information. He could have submitted a representation," the bench said, while declining to entertain the petition. The court directed the judicial officer to make a representation before the high court seeking recall of the suspension order, adding that the high court should decide the plea within four weeks, The Times of India said.