The Supreme Court reinstated two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing the need for a gender-sensitive work environment. Justice Nagarathna highlighted the challenges faced by women in judiciary.
The Supreme Court, while overturning the dismissal of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, has emphasized the need for a sensitive work environment for women in the judiciary. The ruling, delivered on February 28, 2025, underscores the importance of recognizing gender-specific challenges faced by women judicial officers.
Judgment Highlights
- The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh observed that while gender should not be an excuse for poor performance, it is a significant factor that must be considered in judicial evaluations.
- One of the officers faced multiple hardships during her probation period, including a miscarriage, the COVID-19 infection, and her brother’s blood cancer diagnosis. Despite these challenges, her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) was downgraded without due consideration.
- The Court ruled that such circumstances must be acknowledged while assessing performance, as failing to do so disregards the physical and emotional toll on women officers.
Need for a Gender-Sensitive Judiciary
- Justice Nagarathna, in her judgment, remarked: "It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to ensure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance."
- The judgment emphasized that increased female representation in the judiciary enhances the quality of judicial decision-making, particularly in cases involving women.
- The Court also stated that promoting women’s participation in the judiciary advances gender equality.
Oral Observations by Justice Nagarathna
- After pronouncing the order, Justice Nagarathna noted: "This judgment gave us an opportunity to say how women judicial officers have to be treated... Women judicial officers often take painkillers to sit through court proceedings. This reality must be acknowledged."
- Addressing the challenges faced by one officer, she added: "She was hospitalized due to COVID, her brother had blood cancer, she suffered a miscarriage, and she had to revive a vacant court. Despite all this, she was told that she had not performed well. Such dismissals cannot be justified."
Case Title: ADITI KUMAR SHARMA v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024
Attachment:
