High Court’s Strong Critique of Judicial Hierarchy

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a critical assessment of the power dynamics within the judiciary, likening the relationship between district and high court judges to that of “serfs” under feudal lords. This observation was made by Justice Atul Sreedharan in a case involving a terminated Special Judge (SC/ST) from the district judiciary. The court highlighted that the current system fosters an environment of fear and submission rather than mutual respect, with district judges often feeling psychologically subjugated.

Feudal Dynamics in Judicial Interactions

Justice Sreedharan noted that the interaction between high court and district judges is reminiscent of colonial practices, with district judges often receiving high court judges at railway stations and serving refreshments. Such practices, according to the court, perpetuate a sense of entitlement and reinforce outdated power structures. The court also pointed out that district judges deputed to the high court registry frequently face disrespect, such as not being offered a seat, which further entrenches systemic inequality.

Impact on Justice Delivery

The pervasive fear among district judges compromises the justice system’s foundation. The court observed that this fear leads to decisions such as denying bail in deserving cases or recording convictions without sufficient evidence. This environment discourages judges from making independent decisions, fearing repercussions from the higher judiciary. The metaphorical comparison to the caste system underscores the deep-rooted nature of these issues, with high court judges seen as “savarnas” and district judges as “shudras.”

Call for Reform and Introspection

Justice Sreedharan emphasized that true rule of law is reflected in the independence and fearlessness of the district judiciary, which serves as the first tier of justice delivery. He criticized the high court’s tendency to harshly reprimand district judges for minor errors, creating a climate of constant fear. This fear is not unfounded, as abrupt terminations can have severe personal consequences for judges and their families.

Case Background and Court’s Decision

The case involved a former Special Judge from Madhya Pradesh who was dismissed after a departmental inquiry related to his judicial decisions in Vyapam-related bail cases. Despite an unblemished 28-year career, his termination was based solely on police officers’ statements without any complaints from litigants or evidence of misconduct. The high court found this to be a miscarriage of justice driven by administrative disagreements. The division bench quashed his dismissal, ordered his reinstatement with full benefits, and awarded compensation for the trauma caused by the unlawful action.