Judges should avoid using social media and refrain from expressing their opinions about judgments online, the Supreme Court has said, observing that they must live like a hermit and work like a horse. Stating that there is no place for showiness in the judiciary, the court said, “Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgments because tomorrow if the judgment is cited, judge has already expressed one way or the other.”
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made the oral remarks while hearing a case on the dismissal of two women judicial officers – Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary – by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
“It (social media) is an open platform. You have to live life a hermit, work like a horse. So much sacrifice judicial officers have to do. They should not go into Facebook at all,” the court observed.
Echoing the court’s views, senior advocate R Basant – who appeared for one of the terminated woman judges – said no judge or judicial officer should post anything related to judicial work on Facebook.
The remarks followed a submission by senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal – who is an amicus curiae or an adviser to the court – that raised complaints against the terminated judge. In his submission, he had flagged a Facebook post by the judge.
The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of the dismissal of six women civil judges on a performance basis on November 11, 2023. On August 1, a full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided to reinstate four of them – Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi – on certain terms.
The other two judges were left out of the exercise, which is being considered by the Supreme Court.
A report by the High Court had flagged a drop in Aditi Sharma’s performance from very good and good ratings to average and poor since 2019-20, stating that her disposal rate was below 200 in 2022. She, however, told the high court that she suffered a miscarriage in 2021, after which her brother was diagnosed with cancer.
The court then noted that a quantitative assessment of the judges’ work could not be carried out due to Covid, despite which they were terminated, and issued notices to the high court registry and the judicial officers who had not approached it against the termination.