On Thursday, the Supreme Court entered sensitive institutional territory while examining the limits of judicial accountability, raising a pointed query on whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a judge if a judicial order is found to be influenced by dishonest or extraneous considerations. The remarks came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh challenging his suspension by the High Court, just days before his retirement, placing judicial conduct, administrative control, and accountability mechanisms under close scrutiny.
The case stemmed from a challenge mounted by a District Judge against an order of suspension issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on November 19, 2025, days before his scheduled retirement on November 30, 2025. Subsequently, by virtue of an Apex Court order extending the retirement age of judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner’s tenure stood extended until November 30, 2026.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi contended that the suspension order did not disclose reasons and was allegedly linked, as per media reports, to two judicial orders passed by the petitioner. According to the submissions, these orders pertained to interim stays on recoveries of royalties and penalties relating to mining activities.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that no disciplinary action could be founded solely on judicial orders. Senior Advocate submitted that if an order is legally flawed, the remedy lies in appellate correction, not administrative punishment. Emphasising the petitioner’s service record, he described him as an upright judicial officer with favourable Annual Confidential Reports.
The Counsel further submitted that the interim orders in question were passed after hearing the State and were detailed in nature. He maintained that no material had been placed to suggest that the orders were actuated by any extraneous consideration or improper motive.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, however, raised a broader institutional concern. The Chief Justice observed, “Merely because the orders are erroneous, disciplinary action cannot be taken. But if the orders are palpably based on some dishonest or extraneous considerations, then why not?”
The Court also commented on what it described as an emerging pattern among members of the judiciary nearing retirement. CJI Surya Kant remarked, “It is becoming a growing trend that judges before retirement start passing so many orders.”
During the exchange, the Bench sought clarity on the nature of the orders passed and the financial implications involved. When mining royalties were mentioned, the Chief Justice queried, “Mining royalties...running into how many crores?”
The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner’s decision to seek reasons for his suspension through an application under the Right to Information Act. The Bench observed, “Such a recourse adopted by the petitioner is completely unheard and not expected from an officer of his experience. He ought to have represeted to the competent authority against the order of suspension as that would have enabled the High Court to convey the reasons of suspension and/or to formally initiate the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in the suspension order itself.”
Ultimately, while declining to interfere with the suspension at the present stage, the Apex Court disposed of the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy. The Bench directed, “While we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the suspension order at this stage, we grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the High Court for the recall of the order of suspension and to seek any other relief as per the rules. Let the High Court take an appropriate decision on the representation as early as possible, at any rate, within two weeks.”
Following the pronouncement, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner for reinstatement at another posting. Responding to this, the Chief Justice made a pointed remark on judicial conduct close to retirement, stating, “When he started hitting these sixers, he did not know that the retirement age would be extended. The message must go Mr.Sanghi. This unfortunate trend... I don't want to say anything further.”
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
