District judiciary working in perpetual fear of High Court, acting like "invertebrate mammals": MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently drew a stark comparison, likening the relationship between High Court judges and the district judiciary to that of a feudal lord and a serf [Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].

The Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Dinesh Kumar Paliwal used the analogy to highlight the "perpetual fear" experienced by trial court judges when interacting with High Court judges. 

“The dismal relationship between the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the District Judiciary is one between a feudal lord and serf. The body language of the Judges of the District Judiciary when they greet a Judge of the High Court stops short of grovelling before the High Court Judge, making the Judges of the District Judiciary the only identifiable species of invertebrate mammals,” it said.

The Court was dealing with a plea by a former judicial officer Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi challenging his termination over his decision on bail pleas related to the Vyapam scam and other cases in 2014. He was accused of holding divergent opinions on the bail applications in the same cases, as he had granted bail to some and denied relief to others.

In a strongly-worded verdict, the Bench headed by Justice Sreedharan said that the case reveals a malady that cannot be addressed effectively on account of the social structure existing in the State, which also manifests in the judiciary.

The Court added that the action taken against Chaturvedi affirms the notion that grant of relief to accused by trial courts can result in adverse action by the High Court.

“It is precisely cases like this that result in a large number of bail applications pending before the High Court as also the Criminal Appeals. Experience at Bar gives this Court the wisdom to arrive at the opinion that the District Judiciary functions under the perpetual fear of the High Court. Like this case, where the Petitioner was terminated from service on account of passing bail orders in favour of the applicants, the message that goes down to the District Judiciary by such acts of the High Court is that acquittals recorded in major cases or bails granted by the Courts below the High Court, can result in adverse action against Judges passing such orders, though they are judicial orders."

Further highlighting the fear the trial judges have of High Court judges, the Court said,

“Instances of the judges of the District Judiciary personally attending to Judges of the High Court (as desired by them) on railway platforms and waiting on them with refreshments, are commonplace, thus perpetuating a colonial decadence with a sense of entitlement. Judges of the District Judiciary on deputation to the registry of the High Court are almost never offered a seat by the Judges of the High Court and on a rare occasion when they are, they are hesitant to sit down before the High Court Judge. The subjugation and enslavement of the psyche of the Judges of the District Judiciary is complete and irreversible, so it seems. The relationship between District Judiciary and the High Court in the State is not based on mutual respect for each other but one where a sense of fear and inferiority is consciously instilled by one on the subconscious of the other.”

The Court also highlighted the caste divide in the judiciary, opining that this adds to the passive subjugation of district judges.

The same ultimately reflects in their judicial work where bail is not granted in even the most deserving cases, convictions are recorded in the absence of evidence by giving the prosecution the benefit of doubt and charge is framed as though the power to discharge simply doesn’t exist, the Court added.

The Court further remarked that an overbearing High Court, ever willing to excoriate the district judiciary for the most innocuous of its errors, ensures that the latter is kept under perpetual and morbid fear of punishment.

A district judiciary which is compelled to work perpetually under this fear cannot dispense justice, it added. The Court went on to highlight the repercussions of abrupt actions taken against judicial officers.

"The fear of the District Judiciary is understandable. They have families, children who go to school, parents undergoing treatment, a home to be built, savings to be accumulated and when the High Court terminates his service abruptly on account of a judicial order passed him, he and his entire family is out on the streets with no pension and the stigma of facing a society that suspects his integrity," it said.

The Court also said that the judicial conservatism of the district judiciary that results in the denial of bail and unsustainable convictions is a sham, masquerading as justice.

"The High Court would do well to introspect and realise that in the era of unbridled social media and unmoderated expression of public opinion, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and as we sow, so shall we reap," it added.

Advocate Vipin Yadav represented the petitioner.

Deputy Advocate General Shweta Yadav appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with Advocate Kaustubh Chaturvedi appeared for the High Court.

[Read Judgment]