If Judicial Order Is Based On Dishonest Or Extraneous Factors, Why Not Take Disciplinary Action Against Judge? Supreme Court

Though action cannot be taken against a judge for a judgment, if it is passed based on dishonest or extraneous factors, why cannot disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi raised this query while hearing a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh who challenged the High Court's order suspending him.

Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, for the petitioner, submitted that he was a highly reputed judicial officer with good ACRs, and the order of suspension was passed against him when he was days away from his retirement.

Sanghi said that though no reasons were mentioned for the suspension, as per the press reports, it was passed on the basis of two judicial orders. "For judicial orders, there cannot be any action," he submitted, saying that if an order is erroneous, then it can be corrected by the appellate forum.

"Merely because the orders are erroneous, disciplinary action cannot be taken. But if the orders are palpably based on some dishonest or extraneous considerations, then why not?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

CJI further said, "It is becoming a growing trend that judges before retirement start passing so many orders." Sanghi asserted that the petitioner is an upright judge.

When the bench asked what were the orders passed, Sanghi replied that they were passed to stay recoveries of royalties/penalties in respect of some mining activities.

"Mining royalties...running into how many crores?" CJI asked. Sanghi said that he has not gone through the orders himself in detail, but added that no material has been shown to indicate that there were extraneous considerations.

Referring to Sanghi's past experience as a former High Court Chief Justice, CJI said, "Mr. Sanghi, with your experience as a former head of an institution, if somebody passes this kind of very....did he issue notice to the revenue before staying?" Sanghi replied that the interim orders were detailed ones passed after hearing the State.

Sanghi pointed out that the petitioner was due to retire on November 30, 2025, but by virtue of the Supreme Court's order of November 20 extending the date of retirement of Madhya Pradesh judges, his term got extended till November 30, 2026. The suspension order was passed on November 19.

The bench refused to interfere with the suspension order. In the order, the bench also expressed its displeasure with the petitioner filing an application under the Right to Information Act before the High Court to know the reasons for his suspension, and said that he should have instead filed a representation before the competent authority.

"Such a recourse adopted by the petitioner is completely unheard and not expected from an officer of his experience. He ought to have represeted to the competent authority against the order of suspension as that would have enabled the High Court to convey the reasons of suspension and/or to formally initiate the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in the suspension order itself. While we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the suspension order at this stage, we grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the High Court for the recall of the order of suspension and to seek any other relief as per the rules. Let the High Court take an appropriate decision on the representation as early as possible, at any rate, within two weeks," the bench observed while disposing of the writ petition.

After the order was dictated, Sanghi requested to allow the reinstatement of the petitioner and post him in some other station. The bench pointed out that the petitioner was not aware that the Supreme Court would extend the retirement age when he had passed the orders. "When he started hitting these sixers, he did not know that the retirement age would be extended. The message must go Mr.Sanghi. This unfortunate trend... I don't want to say anything further," CJI said.

Case : RAJARAM BHARTIYA Vs THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH | W.P.(C) No. 1230/2025