Insubordination does not mean doubtful integrity: Supreme Court backs HC ruling in favour of judicial officer

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court judgment expunging an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) remark of "doubtful integrity" against a woman judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Manju Kumari].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana expressed doubts over whether allegations of insubordination, poor judicial temperament and misconduct towards lawyers could be grounds to justify recording a judicial officer's integrity as doubtful.

"Insubordination is not an integrity issue. Insubordination is a temperament issue," Justice Bagchi observed.

The case arose from an ACR recorded against judicial officer Manju Kumari for 2019-2020, when she was posted in Ghaziabad. The report questioned her integrity following complaints about her conduct, judicial work and behaviour towards members of the bar.

On July 10, 2026, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh expunged the adverse integrity remark after finding that the material relied upon did not establish dishonesty or lack of probity.

The Allahabad High Court administration subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging that decision.

During Tuesday's hearing, the counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the officer had repeatedly refused to undertake magisterial work, behaved rudely with advocates and made complaints against senior judicial officers.

It was argued that several complaints had been received from the bar and that three administrative committees had considered the officer's representations before the adverse entry was sustained.

Justice Bagchi, however, questioned whether any of those complaints concerned dishonesty.

"Integrity relates to dishonesty. Insubordination relates to judicial temperament. That is where the Division Bench appears to have drawn the distinction," he observed.

The counsel submitted that the officer's lack of sincerity and unwillingness to perform assigned duties were relevant considerations while assessing integrity.

The Bench disagreed with the use of such a serious expression without adequate factual foundation.

"Integrity should not be used so loosely. You should not use an incorrect expression. You should say that this person has a temperament issue," Justice Bagchi said.

He pointed out that the ACR contained separate columns assessing the officer's behaviour towards lawyers and her performance, which could have been relied upon without questioning her integrity.

The Court also examined the officer's service record before and after the disputed ACR.

Justice Bagchi noted that her record had been satisfactory between 2013 and 2020 and that subsequent reports also reflected improvement.

"Does an officer become dishonest for one year and honest in all the other years?" he asked.

The counsel for the High Court maintained that the adverse entry had served its purpose by prompting an improvement in the officer's performance.

The Bench responded that an employer should recognise such improvement rather than continue defending an unsupported allegation concerning integrity.

"As you rightly said, your warning has had its impact in improving her performance. I think a model employer should leave it at that," the Court observed.

Justice Bagchi also emphasised the need to ensure that the officer was not victimised.

The counsel eventually informed the Bench that the High Court would not press the matter further.

The Supreme Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition, leaving the Allahabad High Court's decision undisturbed.

[Read Live Coverage]