The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for judges to lead disciplined lives, asking them to avoid social media and refrain from expressing personal opinions on judicial matters. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagaratna and N Kotiswar Singh, said judges should live “like hermits” and work “like horses” and declined to comment personally on the verdict.
“Judicial staff should not be on Facebook. They should not be commenting on the judgment, because if the judgment is cited tomorrow, the judge has already said something. It is an open platform for judges,” news agency PTI quoted the court as saying. During oral observation.
The Supreme Court emphasized the sacrifices that can be expected during judicial service and stated that “there is no room for ostentation in the judiciary.”
The remarks were made while the Madhya Pradesh High Court was hearing a case regarding the dismissal of two women judicial officers for alleged poor performance during their probationary period.
The court learned of a Facebook post by one of the fired judges, prompting the court to comment on the dangers of judges’ use of social media platforms.
Senior Advocate R. Basant, representing one of the sacked judges, echoed the court’s concerns, saying that neither judicial officers nor judges should post anything related to their work on social media. said.
The court’s findings were part of a broader discussion on the case of six women civil judges who were dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court earlier this year.
Four of them were reinstated after a review, but two – Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary – remained excluded. The judges appointed in 2017 and 2018 were removed in June 2023 after failing to meet performance standards during their probationary periods.
One of the fired judges claimed her performance review did not take into account extenuating circumstances, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.
Her petition argued that the assessment did not take into account the impact of maternity and paternity leave, thereby violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court took note of these complaints, especially in view of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted the functioning of the judiciary and affected the quantitative evaluation of case processing.
Notices have been issued to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and other parties involved in the case.
(with input from PTI)
