The Madhya Pradesh High Court received the resignation of Civil Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma, who cited institutional betrayal following the elevation of a judicial officer she had accused of harassment. Her resignation came hours after the Central Government cleared the appointment of District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta as a judge of the High Court. While the appointment is yet to be formalized through oath taking, the development prompted Sharma to step down in what she described as a “protest against injustice within the judiciary itself".
Levelled serious allegations of harassment against Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Despite her formal complaints submitted to constitutional authorities including the President of India and the Supreme Court Collegium, no inquiry was initiated, nor were the concerns publicly addressed. Her calls to reconsider Gupta’s elevation were effectively sidelined, even though at least two other judicial officers are said to have raised similar allegations.
Sharma had previously been one of six women judicial officers terminated by the Madhya Pradesh Government in June 2023 for alleged underperformance during probation. However, the Supreme Court, taking suo motu cognizance of the mass termination, reinstated all six officers, including Sharma. The apex court had notably directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to exercise greater sensitivity toward women in the judiciary and emphasized that justice must visibly function within judicial institutions.
In her resignation letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Sharma did not mince words. She described her decision as an act of moral protest, stating, “With every ounce of my moral strength and emotional exhaustion, I hereby resign from judicial service, not because I lost faith in justice, but because justice lost its way inside the very institution sworn to protect it.”
She emphasized that her stand was not merely personal, but emblematic of a deeper, systemic failure. Calling attention to what she viewed as institutional indifference, she wrote, “Let it remain in your archives as a reminder that there once was a woman judge in Madhya Pradesh who gave her all to justice and was broken by the system that preached it the loudest.”
The resignation letter also directly called out the system’s silence on the complaints raised. With striking candour, Sharma remarked, “The man I accused, not lightly, not anonymously, but with documented facts and the raw courage only a wounded woman can summon, was not even asked to explain. No inquiry. No notice. No hearing. No accountability. And now, he is titled ‘Justice.’ A cruel joke upon the very word.”
Despite the serious allegations, District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium in early July 2025 and approved by the Centre by July 28. There has been no public indication that the High Court conducted any internal inquiry into the matter. Speaking to media prior to his elevation being cleared, Gupta denied all wrongdoing, stating, “There have never been any complaints against me. I have lived like a saint for 35 years of my service.”
He added that he had not received any formal communication from the High Court regarding the allegations.
Sharma, in letters addressed to constitutional authorities in July 2025, had urged that those with serious and unresolved complaints against them should not be rewarded with constitutional posts. She emphasized that the matter extended beyond individual suffering and reflected broader concerns about accountability within the judiciary.
Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma’s resignation, coming in the wake of an unaddressed grievance and the elevation of a judge she had accused, raises significant questions about institutional transparency and the judiciary’s internal redressal mechanisms. The Supreme Court had earlier underscored the importance of creating a work environment sensitive to gendered experiences within the judicial system. Her decision to resign, rather than remain silent, places a spotlight on the structural challenges that continue to face women in the judiciary.
The matter has reignited public discourse around the need for transparent inquiry processes within judicial institutions, especially when serious allegations are raised against individuals being considered for elevation to higher constitutional offices.
Picture Source :
