The Supreme Court recently dismissed the Allahabad High Court administration's plea against a judicial officer, noting that mere insubordination of a judicial officer could not render suspect the "integrity" of that officer.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the challenge of the High Court administration, noting that the judicial officer concerned had good service records for the period 2013-19 and 2020-21 onwards, and there was nothing adverse against her.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked,

"there may be rudeness in her, there may be tendency to shirk work, but will that make the officer of doubtful integrity? There is an understanding in common parlance as to what is integrity...the word integrity relates to dishonesty. Insubordination relates to judicial temperament."

On the submission of the High Court that a number of complaints were made by advocates against the judicial officer, the judge noted that none of the complaints were with regard to dishonesty. It was observed that there were complaints and cross-complaints over exchanges with members of the Bar, for which the judicial officer had also given her explanation.

Justice Bagchi expressed that the judicial officer perhaps lacked proper temperament or ability to manage court affairs. In similar spirit, the CJI noted that the judicial officer's service records were good for all years, except 2019-20.

"A person can't become dishonest for 1 year and honest for all other years", the Chief Justice said. When the Court asked about the officer's performance following 2019-20, the counsel for High Court administration claimed that the ACR had improved following the adverse comment in ACR for 2019-20.

"Then be magnanimous to her", said Justice Bagchi. Disagreeing with the contention that integrity related to sincerity and probity in judicial work, the judge said, "when it's a case of integrity, it's a question of extraneous considerations." In the context of the complaint made by the judicial officer against her superior, Justice Bagchi added,

"It's insubordination. Insubordination is not an integrity issue. It's a temperament issue."

The judge observed that proper expressions should be used in the ACR, which can include an observation that behavior with the Bar is not good.

Although the High Court requested that recourse to any other action against the officer may be left open, however, the bench declined. "We will not give you any compliment like that. As you rightly said, your warning has had its impact in improvement. I think a model employer should leave it at that", said Justice Bagchi.

To recap, between 2019-2020, the respondent was serving as an Additional Civil Judge in a Ghaziabad Court. With regard to this period, her higher ranking officer (District Judge) gave adverse remarks on integrity in her Annual Confidential Report. The officer's integrity was termed 'doubtful' on account of oral complaints by advocates "regarding her behavior and rudeness".

The respondent approached the High Court for expunging of the adverse remarks. When the High Court, on judicial side, called for the administration's response to a query, the administration took the stance that several departmental orders were issued to the judicial officer regarding her conduct and behavior, however, instead of cooperating and mending her ways, she declined in writing to perform the duties assigned by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Infact, she made a complaint against the CJM, and all the acts combined tantamount to "insubordination".

Perusing the definition of "integrity" in Oxford dictionary, the High Court observed that integrity meant character of uncorrupted virtue and that on query, the High Court administration's counsel was unable to point anything from the record to support the claim of 'poor' integrity.

It was further noted that the remark given by the portfolio judge was mainly based on feedback given by the District Judge at the time of his visit. "There is no indication in the remarks that the Honble Judge also interacted with petitioner. It is a case of the higher ranking officer justifying his remark to the Honble portfolio Judge, as would appear on face of the remark, of endorsement and affirmation of the adverse entries."

The High Court further took note of remarks made in the respondent's ACR about certain orders passed in injunction suits.

"The civil Court presided over by petitioner is the Court of first instance in the outlying area of the district. Judgment/orders given by her are amenable to correction in appeal/revision. However, since the entries were there, the District Judge made the remarks. They relate to the merits of the matter discussed. They have nothing to do with the integrity of petitioner", the impugned order recorded.