Supreme Court Flags Questionable Judicial Orders Before Retirement

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court cautioned judicial officers against passing dubious or contentious orders just before retirement, observing that such actions may attract disciplinary scrutiny if they appear driven by extraneous or ulterior considerations, while hearing a case on a judge’s suspension. This warning extends to cases involving environmental clearances and other sensitive matters related to environmental jurisprudence.

Supreme Court’s Observations And Case Background:

• The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern over a growing trend of judges delivering controversial orders on the eve of retirement, including those related to ex post facto environmental clearances.
• The remarks came while the Court refused to interfere with the suspension of Rajaram Bhartiya, Principal District and Sessions Judge of Panna, Madhya Pradesh.
• The Bench noted that when judges believe they are nearing retirement, the timing of judicial decisions inevitably raises doubts about their bona fides, especially in cases involving environmental impact assessments or the Forest Conservation Act.
• Using a cricket metaphor, the CJI described such conduct as “hitting sixers just before retirement,” calling it a “very unfortunate trend.”
• The Court clarified that while judicial independence is vital, it cannot shield actions that appear motivated by ulterior considerations rather than legal reasoning, particularly in matters concerning environmental democracy and the polluter pays principle.

Legal Reasoning And Balance Between Independence And Accountability

• The suspended judge argued that disciplinary action for judicial orders undermines judicial independence, especially when orders are reasoned and detailed.
• The Supreme Court agreed that no adverse action should ordinarily follow merely for passing judicial orders.
• However, it underlined a crucial exception: if an order is palpably incorrect or passed for extraneous reasons, such as granting ex post facto environmental clearances without proper justification, disciplinary scrutiny is justified.
• The Bench highlighted that questionable decisions close to retirement erode public confidence and institutional credibility of the judiciary, particularly in environmental cases where the precautionary principle should be applied.
• While declining to stay the suspension, the Court allowed the judge to submit a representation before the High Court on the administrative side.
• The episode has sparked debate within judicial circles, especially as the suspension is reportedly linked to orders quashing a ₹100 crore penalty in an illegal mining case, raising questions about the application of the polluter pays principle and coastal regulation zone norms.