Supreme Court Questions Woman Judge’s Termination: ‘Wish Men Menstruate to Understand the Trauma’

The Supreme Court has criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for terminating civil judge Aditi Kumar Sharma, questioning the lack of consideration given to her mental and physical trauma due to a miscarriage. The apex court, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, expressed strong disapproval of the criteria used for her dismissal, remarking, “I wish men have menstruation. Then they will know what it is.”

Background of the Case

Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma was terminated in June 2023 after her performance ratings reportedly declined from “very good” in 2019-20 to “average” and “poor” in subsequent years. The High Court cited her low case disposal rate, particularly during her probation period, as the basis for the decision. However, Sharma attributed her declining performance to a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis, circumstances she said caused significant emotional and physical strain.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for ignoring these personal challenges. Justice Nagarathna strongly emphasized the need to account for such human factors, stating, “The mental and physical trauma of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage should not be disregarded. I hope such criteria are also imposed on male judges.”

The bench also sought clarification from the High Court on its decision-making process and issued notices to the registry and judicial officers who had not challenged the termination.

Broader Context

The case is part of a larger review of the termination of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh state government for alleged unsatisfactory performance. While the High Court reconsidered and reinstated four of the judges, Sharma and another judge, Sarita Chaudhary, were excluded.

Also Read: 104-yr old man released from jail after spending 36-years in Prison

The judges joined the judicial service in 2017 and 2018. A quantitative assessment of their performance was reportedly not possible during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising further questions about the fairness of the evaluations.

Legal Challenge

A plea filed on behalf of Judge Sharma argued that her termination violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Advocate Charu Mathur contended that despite a four-year unblemished service record and no adverse remarks, due process was not followed in the termination.

Implications

This case raises critical questions about gender sensitivity, workplace evaluations, and procedural fairness in the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s remarks highlight the need for more empathetic and inclusive assessment criteria, particularly for women navigating personal and professional challenges.

As the matter unfolds, it brings to light broader issues of equality and justice within the judicial system itself.