“If men had menstruation, they’ll know.’’ “I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges.’’

Taking strong objection to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s criteria of assessing the performance review of lady judicial officers in the High Court which failed to factor the mental and physical impediments of lady judges, one of whom had suffered a miscarriage, a livid Justice B.V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, remarked, “If men had menstruation, they’ll know.’’ “I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges.’’

Recounting facts of the case a total of six lady judicial officers were terminated from service simultaneously by the Madhya Pradesh High Court but a full bench of the court reinstated four lady officers leaving two who moved the Apex court seeking remedy against their termination.

Taking up the suo moto case on 3rd December 2024, the bench of Justice B.V Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh of the Supreme Court were informed about the reasons for their termination in the hearing .

It was stated that one lady officer was consistently performing poorly on criteria of case disposal. It was held that she disposed of just two civil suits in a year. It was also pointed out that even though the unit criteria for performance assessment during Covid-19 was suspended her disposal rate remained below average. The petitioner had clocked a mere 1.36 unit in the performance scale for the year 2021.

Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Advocate Arjun Garg, stated that post Covid-19 , the norm was that whatever unit was earned it would be doubled. But the lady officer’s disposal rate continued to remain the same.

Justifying the termination and adding on to the unfavorable remarks against the lady officer’s performance an inspection judge from Ratlam (Administrative Judge) had stated that she was therefore posted in Satna. It is to be noted that such observations were not made by the Principal District Judge, Satna, where the judicial officer was posted. Crucially, these remarks were conveyed to the officer only after her termination.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate, Indira Jaisingh argued that having gone through a painful miscarriage, plus Covid and the news of her brother suffering from cancer had a bearing on her mental and physical health which should have been factored before her termination. The counsel also pointed out that the officer had received ‘good remarks’ in her ACR but the inspection judge had assessed her as ‘average’ which impacted her assessment review.

The counsel and the Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate, Gaurav Agarwal, brought forth that the complaints against the officer were kept on hold and remained inconclusive. But complaints against her performance were taken up by the full bench of the High Court that decided against her reinstatement into service.

After the Apex Court’s critical observations and remarks, counsel for the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that he would argue no further on the case.

Upon examination of her record, Justice Nagarathna re- affirmed the facts and critically remarked, "I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this. The lady, she has got pregnant and she had miscarriage! The mental and physical ailment of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. What is this? I wish men have menstruation. Then they will know what it is. We are sorry. This is a High Court dealing with a woman judicial officer. Black and white she has written here that due to miscarriage. Have the same kind of criteria for the male judges!”

“And we will see how many people you are going to terminate. Judges are not just an auxiliary system. What is this? Mr. Counsel you say, see the performance, see the performance! After dealing with this matter, how many advocates can say the Court is slow? That we are not disposing?...We may not complete the list in this Court, but are we slow? What is the meaning of target or units? Very easy to say dismiss, dismiss and go home! Rotten thing for district judiciary. Don't say that she has not done it. Look at the record! When they are not working, send them home. But when they are suffering physically and mentally, don't say they are not working, particularly for women. We are not shooting the messenger but we are expressing..."

After the Apex Court’s critical observations and remarks, counsel for the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that he would argue no further on the case.

The matter will now be taken up on December 12.

CASE TITLE: Aditi Kumar Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh AND ORS; W.P(C) No.233/2024