E-Paper
MP judicial officer opposes proposed elevation of judge
Judicial officer Aditi Kumar Sharma called the proposed elevation of district judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta a “gross misjudgment that threatens the credibility of judicial institutions”
A Madhya Pradesh woman judicial officer, whose controversial dismissal was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this year, has urged the top court collegium to reconsider its recent recommendation for elevating a senior district judge to the Madhya Pradesh high court, citing serious allegations of misconduct, caste-based harassment and abuse of authority against him.
In a rare and strongly worded representation addressed to the Chief Justice of India and other companion judges in the collegium, judicial officer Aditi Kumar Sharma called the proposed elevation of district judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta a “gross misjudgment that threatens the credibility of judicial institutions”.
Along with four other judicial officers, Gupta, who is currently working as principal district and sessions judge at Ujjain, was on July 2 recommended by the collegium for appointment in the state high court. He is the senior most in the list of nominees.
Gupta declined HT’s request for comment, citing ethics and code of conduct. Gupta added that he is functioning under the subordination of the high court and therefore, it is only for the office of registrar general to the high court to respond on such matters.
On her part, Sharma also refused to issue a statement owing to her service conditions even as she confirmed that she has moved a representation.
The development comes just four months after the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment on February 28, declared Sharma’s 2023 termination from service as “arbitrary and illegal”, reinstating her with all consequential benefits. Sharma has since been reinstated as a civil judge in Shahdol.
“It is with great anguish and urgency that I place before Your Lordships a heartfelt, solemn representation,” Sharma writes in the letter, accessed by Hindustan Times, alleging that Gupta was directly responsible for biased and malicious inquiries that led to her wrongful termination from service.
Her letter outlined multiple written complaints of serious misconduct against Gupta, including one from a Dalit district judge alleging caste-based harassment, and another by a principal district judge accusing him of public abuse, intimidation of judicial peers and bureaucrats, and derogatory remarks against senior high court judges and their families.
“These complaints were neither duly inquired into nor were the complainants ever called for statement or hearing. The silence that followed these reports was not the silence of vindication—it was the silence of suppression,” Sharma notes.
She further claimed that Gupta used his position to initiate a vendetta-driven inquiry against her, violating principles of natural justice. “Primarily based on those very inquiries, entirely driven by malice and personal vendetta, I was wrongfully terminated from judicial service,” wrote Sharma, adding that it was the Supreme Court’s intervention that “implicitly acknowledged the injustice” meted out to her.
In its February 28 judgment, a bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna had emphasised that women’s rights to equality and protection during pregnancy and maternity are “precious” and must be upheld in every workplace, including the judiciary. The court found that Sharma’s dismissal failed to consider her medical and emotional challenges, as she had suffered from severe Covid-19 complications and a miscarriage, and that her performance appraisal had been downgraded unfairly.
“While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer,” the court had then noted. It asserted that gender diversity in the judiciary improves the quality of judicial decision-making and encourages more women to seek justice.
In her fresh representation before the collegium, Sharma warned that Gupta’s elevation would signal that impunity is rewarded within the judiciary, potentially discouraging other officers from speaking out against systemic abuse or bias. “The elevation of a person like Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta will not only shatter the faith of the upright judicial officers... but will also cast a long, dark shadow on the credibility of the collegium system itself,” she stated.
She has sought an independent and transparent inquiry into the pending complaints against Gupta and offered to provide documentary evidence supporting her claims. Expressing apprehension of being targeted for raising concerns, she has also requested protection from victimisation. The representation has also been marked to the President of India.
