The Supreme Court has underscored the need for judges to lead disciplined lives, urging them to avoid social media and refrain from expressing personal opinions on judicial matters.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh remarked that judges should live “like hermits” and work “like horses”, while avoiding personal comments on judgements.
“Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgements because tomorrow, if the judgement is cited, the judge has already expressed one way or the other. It is an open platform,” news agency PTI quoted the bench as saying during oral observations.
Highlighting the sacrifice expected during judicial service, the top court said, “There is no place for flamboyance in the judiciary.”
The remarks came while hearing a case involving the termination of two women judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court over alleged unsatisfactory performance during their probation periods.
The court learnt that one of the terminated judges had made a post on Facebook, prompting the bench to comment on the dangers of judges’ use of social media platforms.
Senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the terminated judges, echoed the court’s concerns, stating that no judicial officer or judge should post anything related to their work on social media.
The court’s observations were part of a broader discussion on the case of six women civil judges terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court earlier this year.
Among these, four were reinstated after reconsideration, but two – Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary-remained excluded. The judges, appointed in 2017 and 2018, were dismissed in June 2023 for failing to meet performance standards during their probation period.
One of the terminated judges argued that her performance assessment did not account for extenuating circumstances, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.
Her plea claimed that the evaluation failed to consider the impact of maternity and child care leave, violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court took note of these grievances, especially given the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, which disrupted the judiciary’s functioning and affected quantitative assessments of case disposals.
Notices were issued to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and other stakeholders involved in the case.