Supreme Court Flags ‘Last-Minute Verdicts’ by Judges Before Retirement, Raises Concern Over Judicial Integrity

New Delhi: In a sharp and unsettling observation on judicial conduct, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over a growing trend of judges delivering a flurry of significant verdicts just before retirement, raising questions about impartiality and intent. The apex court warned that such a pattern, if driven by extraneous considerations, poses a serious threat to the credibility of the justice system.

The remarks came from a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Suryakant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a petition filed by a Principal District Judge from Madhya Pradesh, who had challenged his suspension just 10 days before retirement. The suspension was reportedly linked to two judicial orders passed by the judge shortly before his superannuation.

‘Hitting Fours and Sixes Before Retirement’

Making an unusually candid comment, the CJI said:

“The petitioner played too many fours and sixes just before retirement. This is an unfortunate and growing trend. I do not wish to elaborate further.”

The court noted that such last-minute judicial activism inevitably raises suspicion about whether decisions were delivered independently or to appease certain interests before demitting office.

Can Judges Be Punished for Wrong Orders?

Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for the suspended judge, argued that his client had an unblemished career with consistently strong Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). He submitted that suspending a judicial officer merely for passing orders—against which appeals are legally available—was unjustified.

“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders that are subject to appellate correction by higher courts?” Sanghi asked.

Supreme Court’s Crucial Question

Responding to this, the Bench made a critical distinction:

“Disciplinary action cannot be initiated merely because a judicial officer has passed incorrect orders. But what if the orders are manifestly dishonest?”

This observation underscored the thin but vital line between judicial error and judicial misconduct.

Retirement Extended, Suspension Questioned

The judge was originally due to retire on November 30, 2025, but was suspended on November 19, before being informed that the Madhya Pradesh government had increased the retirement age of state employees to 62 years. On November 20, the Supreme Court directed that his retirement be deferred by one year, extending it to November 30, 2026.

The Bench noted that when the controversial orders were passed, the judge was unaware that his retirement age would be extended—adding another layer of complexity to the case.

Court Declines to Intervene Directly

The Supreme Court also questioned why the judge had not first approached the High Court against his suspension. It expressed disapproval over the judge seeking reasons for his suspension through an RTI application, stating:

“It is not expected that a senior judicial officer would resort to the RTI route to seek such information.”

Finding no grounds for direct intervention, the Court declined to entertain the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the High Court, which was directed to decide the matter within four weeks.

A Deeper Systemic Concern

The Court’s remarks have reignited debate on judicial accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct, particularly as judges approach retirement. Observers note that while judicial independence must be protected, any perception of bias or impropriety—especially in the twilight of a judge’s career—can erode public confidence in the institution.

The Supreme Court’s candid comments signal that the issue is not isolated, but systemic, and may require deeper introspection and corrective mechanisms within the judiciary to ensure fairness, integrity, and trust—till the very last day on the bench.