HC Judges & Trial Court Judges Have 'Feudal Lord & Serf' Relationship; No Mutual Respect : MP High Court

Setting aside the dismissal of a Special Judge of the District Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court criticised the "dismal relationship" between Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary terming it one between a feudal lord and serf. Calling out the psychological subjugation faced by the trial court judges at the hands of the higher judiciary, the court awarded Rs 5 Lakh to the judicial officer for "gross injustice". A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that an "overbearing" high court trying to "excoriate the District Judiciary" for the small errors, ensures that District Judiciary is kept under perpetual and morbid fear of punishment. This the bench said affects dispensation of justice. The bench thereafter observed:"The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf. The body language of the Judges of the District Judiciary when they greet a Judge of the High Court stops short of grovelling before the High Court Judge, making the Judges of the District Judiciary the only identifiable species of invertebrate mammals. Instances of the judges of the District Judiciary personally attending to Judges of the High Court (as desired by them) on railway platforms and waiting on them with refreshments, are commonplace, thus perpetuating a colonial decadence with a sense of entitlement. Judges of the District Judiciary on deputation to the registry of the High Court are almost never offered a seat by the Judges of the High Court and on a rare occasion when they are, they are hesitant to sit down before the High Court Judge. The subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary is complete and irreversible, so it seems. The relationship between District Judiciary and the High Court in the State is not based on mutual respect for each other but one where a sense of fear and inferiority is consciously instilled by one on the subconscious of the other". The high court observed that at a subliminal level, the penumbra of the "caste system", manifests in the judicial structure in the state, where those in the High Court are the "savarn as and the shudras are the les Misérables of the District Judiciary this is reflected in the abject supineness of the Judges of the District Judiciary". It said, "...this adds up to the passive subjugation of the District Judiciary leaving it psychologically emaciated, which ultimately reflects in their judicial work where bails are not granted in even the most deserving cases, convictions are recorded in the absence of evidence by giving the prosecution the benefit of doubt and charge is framed as though the power to discharge simply doesn't exist.All this in the name of saving their job, for which the Petitioner in this case suffered, for thinking and doing differently".The court thus quashed the order terminating the judicial officer's services and restored pensionary benefits to the judicial officer who had superannuated in the meanwhile from service. It said:"Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. The Petitioner has superannuated in the meanwhile from service. However, on account of gross injustice suffered by him, this Court, besides restoring his pensionary benefits, also directs that he should be given back wages from the date on which he was terminated till the date he would have otherwise superannuated with 7% interest... the humiliation in society that he had to face, only on account of passing judicial orders, without an iota of material coming on record to even establish corruption even on the anvil of preponderance of probability, this Court deems it essential to impose a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) which shall be paid to the Petitioner, to be shared between the Respondents". BackgroundThe petitioner, working as a Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, had served for nearly 28 years when his services were terminated on October 19, 2015. This action was taken by the administrative side of the High Court, wherein the petitioner had grantedbased on a certain bail order he passed in a criminal case involving the VYAPAM Scam. A departmental inquiry was held, and the judge was found guilty of misconduct. His appeal against the termination was rejected in 2016, prompting him to file this writ petition. The main allegation was that the judge had granted anticipatory bail to some accused persons but denied it to others, even though they were all allegedly involved in the same criminal case.FindingsHowever, the high court noted that only one of the four charges mentioned any "corruption or dishonest motive"; the others merely highlighted a difference in judges' approach while deciding bail. Crucially, it was noted that no complaint was filed by any of the accused whose bail applications were denied, and the ...

HC Judges & Trial Court Judges Have 'Feudal Lord & Serf' Relationship; No Mutual Respect : MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags