Judicial Officer Moves Supreme Court Against Penalty Imposed By High Court For Summary Disposal Of Cases

The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice on a Judicial Officer's plea against the penalty imposed on her for disposing of 1926 criminal cases in 5 months by stopping proceedings as a Magistrate, without proper application of mind, at the summons stage itself.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate PB Suresh (for the petitioner). The senior counsel argued that the law is settled to the effect that unless there are extraneous considerations attributable to the Presiding Officer, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the judicial discretion exercised by them. He further highlighted that most of the cases disposed of by the petitioner were cases involving penalty of fine.

"[Discretion] exercised in 1926 cases. What kind of message goes?", remarked Justice Mehta.

Subsequently, Suresh highlighted that two administrative judges had written letters appreciating the petitioner's work, as she had been able to clear a huge backlog. Hearing the submissions, the bench issued notice.

Briefly put, the petitioner, while posted as a First-Class Judicial Magistrate in Kollam, disposed of 1926 cases in a span of about 5 months by invoking powers under Section 258 CrPC (which empowers a Magistrate to stop proceedings in a summons case at any stage). Majority of these cases were registered under Sections 279 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, related to negligent and drunken driving respectively.

As per the respondents, the petitioner was notified that her work needed improvement and a direction was issued to her to dispose of more contested cases. However, only to impress upon the High Court that she was working hard, she disposed of 1926 cases by invoking Section 258 CrPC, without due application of mind. As per the District Judge, Kollam, her disposal in 5 months was 2499 but not even a single case amongst these had been disposed of after trial.

On the basis that her action was in violation of a High Court office memorandum, enquiry proceedings were initiated against her. In the enquiry, the enquiry officer reported that the petitioner disposed of 1903 cases by invoking Section 258 CrPC between 01.08.2016-31.12.2016, without recording any reason for stopping the proceedings or on flimsy grounds and without taking any effort to understand the law on the subject and the real scope of the provision.

After the enquiry, a major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for 2 years was imposed on her by the Administrative Committee of the High Court.

The petitioner preferred an appeal and review, but could not obtain a favorable order. Ultimately, she moved the Kerala High Court with a writ petition seeking exoneration of the charges and setting aside of the penalty, claiming that she passed the judicial orders in a bonafide manner. She further sought a direction for the authorities to restore her service benefits, disburse arrears and refix her pay.

A Single Judge of the High Court did not grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner, but gave her liberty to approach the Court for reduction of punishment. Against this order, the petitioner filed an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench dismissed her appeal, noting that in the disciplinary proceedings, it was found that her actions amounted to an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and she passed identical orders in 1926 cases without application of mind. It also observed that grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, unbecoming of a judicial officer, were clearly made out.

The Division Bench further noted that the "miscarriage of justice" resulting in large-scale disposal of criminal cases invoking Section 258 CrPC led to initiation of suo motu proceedings by the High Court. Further, the procedure adopted to arrive at the penalty imposed on the petitioner had not been challenged for any major discrepancy or violation. In fact, the petitioner had admitted her mistake in a reply, blaming it on her inexperience, and tendered an unconditional apology.

Aggrieved by the Division Bench order, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court. She contends inter-alia that the enquiry proceedings violated judicial immunity under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963, which bar actions for good-faith judicial discharges. It is also her case that she stopped proceedings only in petty cases where accused evaded appearance despite repeated coercive processes issued by her and appropriate steps undertaken by the prosecution.

Appearance: Senior Advocate PB Suresh, AoR Vipin Nair and Advocate Deeksha Gupta (for petitioner)

Case No : SLP(C) No. 32492/2025