'Wish Men Had Menstruation': SC Questions Woman Judge’s Termination, Calls Out Gender Bias

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to terminate a woman judge, stating that her circumstances, including the trauma of a miscarriage, were overlooked. Expressing strong disapproval, a bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh questioned the fairness of the criteria used for her dismissal.

"I hope such criteria are also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this. The lady, she has got pregnant and she had a miscarriage. The mental and physical trauma of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. What is this? I wish men had menstruation. Then they will know what it is", Justice Nagarathna said.

The court also sought clarification from the High Court regarding the termination criteria applied to civil judges.

The judge in question, Aditi Kumar Sharma, was terminated in June 2023 based on a reported decline in performance, from "very good" and "good" ratings in 2019-20 to "average" and "poor" in subsequent years. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this assessment ignored the impact of her miscarriage in 2021 and her brother's cancer diagnosis, which contributed to her struggles.

The case also brought attention to the termination of five other women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh government, citing unsatisfactory performance. While the High Court later reinstated four judges—Jyoti Varkade, Sonakshi Joshi, Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—Aditi Kumar Sharma and another judge, Sarita Chaudhary, were excluded.

The bench further noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a proper quantitative evaluation of the judges' performance could not be conducted, making their termination questionable.

Advocate Charu Mathur, representing Sharma, argued that the dismissal violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it was carried out without due process. Sharma, who joined the judicial service in 2018, claimed an unblemished service record over four years, with no prior adverse remarks.

The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court registry and the judicial officers who had not challenged their termination. The court stressed on the need for a fair and empathetic assessment of the circumstances leading to the judge’s dismissal.