NEW DELHI : Taking a hardline stance for improving public faith in the integrity of justice delivery in trial courts, Supreme Court Friday said a district judge’s “spoken reputation” is an important factor for a high court in deciding to give him extension or retire him compulsorily.A Gujarat additional district judge was compulsorily retired in “public interest” in July 2016 on attaining the age of 56 years and nine months based on a report of a committee of three HC judges, who examined service records and recommended premature retirement of 18 judicial officers.
The judge had unsuccessfully challenged his compulsory retirement before HC. In the appeal, his counsel Mayuri Raghuvanshi told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi the judicial officer is not contesting his compulsory retirement but challenging the ‘unfit’ tag which, according to him, was stigmatic.The bench said compulsory retirement is not a punitive action and assuaged the feeling of the judicial officer by saying that the remarks in the order compulsorily retiring him would not be an impediment to his entitlements to post-retirement benefits.However, the CJI had some harsh words for those with doubtful integrity in the justice delivery system. “If there is a report about doubtful integrity of a judicial officer and the HC is of the view that he should not continue in service, how can the SC interfere in that decision?” “Spoken reputation of a judicial officer is important to maintain public faith in the justice delivery system. Once a committee of judges casts a doubt on the integrity of a judicial officer and if a decision is taken to compulsorily retire him, then the benefit of doubt (about the correctness of the decision) should go to the institution and not the judicial officer,” the CJI said.The high court had said the service record of the judicial officer from 2000 till 2015 shows the case disposal was either ‘just adequate’, ‘inadequate’, ‘adequate’ or ‘poor’.“We have also noticed adverse entries in his confidential reports. There were three vigilance complaints registered against him, though they were filed. The petitioner was aware of all these adverse facets, and they have become final. At this stage, we cannot substitute the entries in confidential reports or assessments of disposal,” HC had said.“The office that a judge holds is an office of public trust. A judge must be aperson of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence… The standard of conduct expected of a judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of ajudge,” the court had said.
