A judicial officer from Kerala recently moved the Supreme Court against disciplinary action taken against her by the High Court for stopping proceedings in more than 1,900 minor criminal cases almost a decade ago [Sony AS vs. State of Kerala & Ors.].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the State of Kerala on her plea challenging two Kerala High Court orders that upheld the disciplinary penalty and rejected her request to restore her seniority, increments and service benefits.
The case traces back to 2016, when the officer, then serving as a Judicial First Class Magistrate in Kollam, invoked her powers under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stop proceedings in over 1,900 summons cases involving minor offences such as rash driving and drunken driving. The cases had remained pending for years as the accused repeatedly failed to appear despite coercive steps.
According to her petition, these orders were passed in good faith to reduce backlog in accordance with administrative directions encouraging magistrates to prioritise contested trials. Her performance, she stated, was later commended by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) in multiple letters of appreciation between 2018 and 2022.
However, in September 2018, she was served with a charge memo alleging “deliberate disobedience” of an office memorandum issued three years earlier. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in April 2022 with the imposition of a major penalty - withholding two increments with cumulative effect, which was later upheld on review in June 2024.
The officer’s probation had already been delayed by several years, and the penalty further affected her seniority and promotion prospects. She argued that the action was contrary to the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963, which safeguard judges from disciplinary or civil action for acts done in good faith during the discharge of judicial functions.
Her challenge before the Kerala High Court did not succeed. A single-judge of the High Court declined to interfere and a Division Bench in July 2025 affirmed that decision, holding that the penalty could not be disturbed.
Before the Supreme Court, the Senior Advocate PB Suresh, appearing for the officer, contended that disciplinary measures cannot arise from judicial orders unless there is evidence of malice, corruption or extraneous motive.
He argued that administrative circulars cannot restrict statutory discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sought quashing of all disciplinary orders, and restoration of seniority and consequential benefits.
With the Court's notice, the matter is expected to be heard next after the State of Kerala files its response in 4 weeks.
Senior Advocate PB Suresh and advocates Vipin Nair and Deeksha Gupta appeared for the petitioner.