SC Flags ‘Last-Minute Orders’ Trend Among Judges Ahead of Retirement

NEW DELHI, Dec 18: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over a “growing trend” of judges passing a large number of orders just before retirement, likening it to a batter “hitting sixes” in the final overs of a match.

The observation came from a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant while hearing a petition filed by a Madhya Pradesh principal and district judge who challenged a high court full court decision suspending him just 10 days before his scheduled retirement over allegedly questionable judicial orders.

“Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend,” the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, remarked, adding that there was a noticeable increase in judges passing multiple orders close to retirement.

The judicial officer, who was originally due to retire on November 30, was suspended on November 19 over two orders passed by him. His counsel, senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, submitted that the officer had an unblemished service record with consistently high annual confidential report ratings and argued that judges cannot face disciplinary action merely for passing judicial orders.

Agreeing in principle, the bench observed that disciplinary proceedings cannot ordinarily be initiated for erroneous judicial orders, though the Chief Justice drew a distinction between judicial error and misconduct, asking whether action could be justified if orders were “palpably dishonest.”

The court noted that on November 20 it had directed the Madhya Pradesh government to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years, extending the officer’s retirement to November 30, 2026. It also pointed out that the officer was unaware of the age extension when he passed the disputed orders.

Taking exception to the officer seeking details of his suspension through RTI applications, the bench said it was not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to that route and that a representation could have been made instead.

Declining to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the officer to approach the high court seeking recall of the suspension order and directed the high court to decide the representation within four weeks. (Agencies)