The Supreme Court has held that insubordination, behavioural issues or strained relations with members of the Bar cannot, by themselves, form the basis for branding a judicial officer’s integrity as doubtful, observing that questions of judicial temperament must be distinguished from allegations of dishonesty.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana declined to entertain a challenge by the Allahabad High Court administration against a judicial officer, Manju Kumari, noting that her service record was otherwise satisfactory and that there was no material suggesting dishonesty or lack of probity.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that an officer’s alleged rudeness, reluctance to undertake work or inability to maintain cordial relations with members of the Bar might raise concerns about judicial temperament, but would not automatically render her integrity suspect.
Distinguishing between the two concepts, the judge remarked that insubordination was essentially a matter of temperament and discipline, whereas doubtful integrity involved allegations of dishonesty and extraneous considerations.
The observations came in a challenge arising from adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the judicial officer for the period 2019-20, when she was serving as an Additional Civil Judge in Ghaziabad.
The adverse entry had described her integrity as ‘doubtful’, primarily on the basis of oral complaints received from advocates regarding her alleged rudeness and conduct in court.
The High Court administration defended the assessment by submitting that several departmental directions had been issued to the officer concerning her behaviour. However, instead of complying with the instructions, she had allegedly declined in writing to discharge duties assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and had also lodged a complaint against the latter. According to the administration, these circumstances collectively amounted to insubordination.
The bench, however, questioned whether such allegations could legitimately sustain an adverse finding on integrity. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the complaints referred to by the administration did not allege dishonesty. Rather, they concerned exchanges and disagreements between the judicial officer and members of the Bar, with the officer having also furnished her explanation.
The Court further took note of the officer’s service record, which was favourable for the years 2013-19 and from 2020-21 onwards, with the exception of the disputed assessment for 2019-20.
CJI Surya Kant questioned the rationale behind treating the officer as dishonest for a single year when her record for the remaining years did not disclose any such concern. When the administration informed the bench that her ACR had improved following the adverse remarks, Justice Bagchi suggested that the institution should adopt a more magnanimous approach towards her.
The judge observed that where the concern related to an officer’s behaviour towards members of the Bar, the ACR could appropriately record deficiencies in courtroom conduct rather than characterising the officer’s integrity as doubtful.
The bench also declined the High Court administration’s request to keep open the possibility of initiating further action against the judicial officer. Justice Bagchi observed that the warning already issued appeared to have had the desired effect, as her subsequent performance had improved. He remarked that a model employer should recognise such improvement and allow the matter to rest.
The dispute had earlier reached the Allahabad High Court after the judicial officer sought expunction of the adverse integrity remarks from her ACR.
Examining the matter, the High Court had found that the administration was unable to identify any material from the record that could substantiate the allegation of doubtful integrity. It had also noted that the adverse assessment appeared to have been based substantially on feedback provided by the District Judge during a visit, without any indication that the portfolio judge had independently interacted with the officer before endorsing the remarks.
The High Court had further observed that certain adverse comments in the ACR concerning orders passed by the officer in injunction matters related to the merits of her judicial decisions. Since such orders were amenable to correction through appellate or revisional proceedings, their merits could not be conflated with the officer’s personal integrity.
The Supreme Court was hearing the matter in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Manju Kumari and Another, SLP (C) No. 37568 of 2026.
The bench ultimately declined to entertain the challenge, reiterating through its observations the distinction between shortcomings in judicial temperament and a lack of integrity.
The post Insubordination does not by itself cast doubt on Judicial officer’s integrity: Supreme Court rejects Allahabad High Court administration’s plea appeared first on India Legal.