The Supreme Court of India has urged judicial officers to avoid social media platforms and refrain from publicly expressing opinions on judgments, emphasising the importance of discretion and impartiality. Judges, the court remarked, must “live like a hermit and work like a horse,” eschewing any display of showiness.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made these observations during a hearing concerning the dismissal of two women judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The court warned that judicial officers commenting on judgments online could compromise their impartiality, stating, “Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgments because tomorrow, if the judgment is cited, the judge has already expressed one way or the other.”
Highlighting the sacrifices required in the judiciary, the court reiterated the importance of maintaining professional integrity and avoiding open platforms like social media. Senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the dismissed judges, echoed these sentiments, asserting that no judicial officer should post content related to their work online.
The remarks followed concerns raised by senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as an amicus curiae, who flagged a Facebook post made by one of the dismissed judges.
The case stems from the dismissal of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on performance grounds in November 2023. On August 1, the High Court reinstated four of them—Jyoti Varkade, Sonakshi Joshi, Priya Sharma and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—on specific terms, while Aditi Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary were excluded.
A High Court report cited a decline in Aditi Sharma’s performance ratings from 2019-20, noting a drop in her disposal rate to below 200 cases in 2022. Sharma defended her record by attributing the decline to personal challenges, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother’s cancer diagnosis.
The Supreme Court took note of the impact of COVID-19 on judicial performance assessments, suggesting that quantitative evaluations may have been unfairly applied. Notices were subsequently issued to the High Court registry and the judicial officers who had not appealed their terminations.
Also Read: Cabinet Approves ‘ONOE’: What It Means for Gujarat’s Future
