A judicial officer in the subordinate courts performs a “pious duty” in the service of justice. The standards of probity, conduct and integrity of a judicial officer in discharge of his duties are not the same of a careerist who is only bothered about advancement in his profession, the Supreme Court said in a recent judgment.
A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha pronounced the judgment in an appeal filed by Ram Murti Yadav, who was an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Uttar Pradesh. In 2007, Mr. Yadav acquitted accused in a criminal case. A vigilance enquiry into his conduct gave an unfavourable report in 2012. A judicial committee ordered his compulsory retirement in 2016. The State High Court dismissed his appeal.
Mr. Yadav, represented by senior advocate R. Basant, said the judgment of acquittal was an error committed during the discharge of judicial functions. Surely, a judicial officer cannot be retired compulsorily for an “inadvertent mistake” after colouring it with an “inference of dishonesty”. However, the judgment authored by Justice Sinha for the Bench, confirmed the order of compulsory retirement. “It has to be kept in mind that a person seeking justice has the first exposure to the justice delivery system at the level of subordinate judiciary. Thus, a sense of injustice can have serious repercussions not only on that individual but can have its fall out in society as well,” Justice Sinha reasoned.
The apex court said it was absolutely necessary that the ordinary litigant’s faith in the judiciary is kept intact. Even creating a perception to the contrary may have very damaging consequences.
“The standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict. Having said so, we must also observe that it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will make a judicial officer culpable,” the Supreme Court observed.
