The Supreme Court of India has sparked a significant debate on judicial ethics and the role of social media in the lives of judges. In a recent hearing concerning the termination of two judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made striking pronouncements, suggesting a lifestyle akin to that of a hermit coupled with tireless dedication to work.
The court’s oral observations emphasized the lack of tolerance for ostentation within the judiciary, stating, “No Facebook. No Comments, Have to Sacrifice… Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgments… You have to live life a hermit, work like a horse. So much sacrifice judicial officers have to do. They should not go into Facebook at all.” This strong stance underscores the court’s concern about potential biases and conflicts of interest that might arise from public pronouncements and social media engagement.
This opinion received support from senior advocate R Basant, who represented one of the terminated staff members. Mr. Basant echoed the court’s sentiment, advocating for a complete separation between personal social media activities and judicial responsibilities for all judges and judicial officers.
The case itself stems from a suo moto hearing initiated by the Supreme Court on November 11, 2023, concerning the termination of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh government due to what was deemed unsatisfactory performance. While four judges were subsequently reinstated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after a reconsideration of its earlier resolution on August 1st, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary remained terminated.
The court’s examination of Ms. Sharma’s case revealed a decline in her performance rating from ‘very good’ and ‘good’ in 2019-2020 to ‘average’ and ‘poor’ in subsequent years. The report also noted a significant backlog of approximately 1,500 pending cases and a disposal rate below 200 in 2022. However, Ms. Sharma highlighted extenuating circumstances, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis, asserting that these events significantly impacted her ability to meet performance expectations. Her application argued that the failure to account for maternity and child care leave in performance assessments constitutes a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. She contended that such an evaluation method is grossly unfair and infringes upon her fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court, noting the judges’ terminations even amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered a comprehensive quantitative work assessment, issued notices to the High Court registry and the judicial officers involved. The case continues, raising crucial questions about the balance between professional expectations, personal circumstances, and the preservation of judicial integrity in the digital age. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on judicial asceticism and the avoidance of social media is clearly intended to safeguard the impartiality and public trust in the judiciary, a topic likely to remain a focus of public and legal discussion for some time to come.
