Shudras And Savarnas: High Court's Explosive Critique Of Judicial Practices

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has drawn a shocking parallel between the treatment of district and high court judges, referring to the relationship between the higher and lower judiciary as that of "serfs" under feudal lords. 

The court observed that the existing system does not reflect a judicial hierarchy based on mutual respect but one where fear, submission and psychological subjugation are deeply entrenched. 
Justice Atul Sreedharan made the remarks in his order in the case of a terminated Special Judge (SC/ST), who was once part of the district judiciary.

"The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf," the court noted. The body language of District Judges when they greet High Court Judges is so subdued that "it stops short of grovelling," it remarked, adding that District Judges appear to be "the only identifiable species of invertebrate mammals." 

The court went on to document instances where District Judges received High Court Judges at railway stations and waited on them with refreshments - practices that it described as perpetuating "colonial decadence" and reinforcing a "sense of entitlement." 
Even when District Judges are deputed to the High Court registry, they are often not offered a seat and, on rare occasions when they are, they hesitate to sit, said the court. This systemic inequality, the court stated, has led to complete psychological enslavement, where the District Judiciary operates under a constant fear of displeasing the High Court.

The order noted that this pervasive fear compromises the very foundation of justice, leading to a judicial environment where bail is denied even in deserving cases, convictions are recorded in the absence of sufficient evidence, and judges avoid discharging accused persons to avoid drawing ire from the higher judiciary. 

The ruling did not stop at hierarchical criticism but even invoked the caste system metaphorically, observing that "at a subliminal level, the penumbra of the caste system manifests in the judicial structure in this state where those in the High Court are the savarnas and the shudras are the Les Misérables of the District Judiciary."

The court pointed out that such institutionalised fear results in psychological emaciation of trial court judges, eventually affecting their judicial functioning and threatening the rule of law.

Justice Sreedharan underlined that the real measure of the rule of law in any state lies not in the independence of the High Court, which is difficult to access for most citizens, but in the fearlessness of the District Judiciary the first tier of the justice delivery system. 

He wrote that "an overbearing High Court, ever willing to excoriate the District Judiciary for the most innocuous of its errors, ensures that District Judiciary is kept under perpetual and morbid fear of punishment." The fear, he said, is not irrational trial court judges have families, children, sick parents, and financial responsibilities, and an abrupt termination for passing a single judicial order can leave them and their dependents on the streets, without pension and facing a society that questions their integrity. 

The court concluded that a judiciary which works constantly under such fear cannot deliver justice, but rather will "dispense with justice," calling for serious introspection on the power dynamics within the state's judicial system.

The case pertains to a former Special Judge of the SC/ST Court in Madhya Pradesh who was dismissed from service on October 19, 2015, after a departmental inquiry linked to his judicial decisions in certain Vyapam-related bail cases. 

Despite serving the judiciary for 28 years with an unblemished record, he was removed based on allegations that stemmed solely from police officers' statements, with no complaints from any litigant or evidence of malicious intent. The Madhya Pradesh High Court found that his termination was a gross miscarriage of justice, as it was driven by administrative disagreement with his judicial discretion. 

The division bench held that judicial orders cannot be the basis for disciplinary action unless there is proof of dishonesty or corruption. In its judgment, the Court quashed the dismissal, ordered reinstatement with all retirement benefits, back wages with interest, and directed a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the trauma and humiliation caused by the unlawful action.

Trending News