Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Kerala judicial officer’s challenge to disciplinary action taken against her for halting proceedings in nearly 1,900 minor criminal cases while serving as a magistrate in 2016.

A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the State of Kerala on her special leave petition, which assails two Kerala High Court orders affirming the penalty and denying restoration of her seniority, increments and service benefits.

Also Read: 'Indian Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator For Foreign-Seated Arbitration': Supreme Court Dismisses Section 11 Petition Under A & C Act In Buyer–Seller Agreement Dispute Seated In Benin

The officer, then a Judicial First Class Magistrate in Kollam, had invoked Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stop proceedings in a large batch of summons cases—primarily involving rash or drunken driving—after years of non-appearance by the accused despite repeated coercive steps. She maintains that the decision was taken in good faith to address backlog, in line with administrative instructions to prioritise contested matters. Her petition records that between 2018 and 2022, the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) issued several letters appreciating her performance.

However, in 2018 she was served with a charge memo alleging violation of a 2015 office memorandum. Departmental proceedings concluded in April 2022 with a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, later upheld on review in June 2024. The penalty, she says, has further delayed her probation, affected her seniority, and stalled promotions. She argues that the action violates statutory protections under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and the Kerala Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1963, which shield judicial officers from proceedings arising out of bona fide judicial acts.

Her challenge was rejected first by a single judge of the High Court, and then by a Division Bench in July 2025, which held that the penalty could not be interfered with.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate PB Suresh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that disciplinary proceedings cannot stem from judicial orders absent malice, corruption or extraneous motives. He argued that administrative circulars cannot curtail statutory discretion granted under the CrPC, and sought quashing of the penalty along with restoration of all consequential service benefits.

During the hearing, the Bench took note of the sheer volume of cases disposed of by invoking Section 258 CrPC. "[Discretion] exercised in 1926 cases. What kind of message goes?" Justice Mehta remarked. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that two administrative judges had previously commended her efforts at clearing backlog. After hearing the submissions, the Court issued notice.

According to the respondents, the officer had been advised to improve her disposal of contested matters. Instead, they allege, she invoked Section 258 CrPC across 1,900-plus cases “without proper application of mind”, merely to demonstrate high disposal rates. The District Judge, Kollam, reported that though she disposed of 2,499 cases in five months, none were decided after trial.

Also Read: Mere Lack Of Care Not Enough To Attract Criminal Liability U/S 304A IPC; Requires Presence Of Mens Rea: Delhi High Court Quashes Charges Against De-Addiction Centre Owner In Death Case

The enquiry officer found that between August and December 2016, she stopped proceedings in 1,903 cases without recording adequate reasons or fully understanding the scope of Section 258 CrPC. Based on these findings, the High Court’s Administrative Committee imposed the penalty. Her appeal and review failed, following which she approached the High Court seeking exoneration and restoration of service benefits. The Division Bench upheld the findings of “arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion”, noting that identical orders had been passed in 1,926 cases and terming the mass disposal a “miscarriage of justice”. It also recorded that she had admitted error in a reply, attributing it to inexperience and offering an unconditional apology.

Challenging these conclusions, the officer has now approached the Supreme Court, asserting that her actions were bona fide, limited to petty cases where the accused consistently evaded appearance despite repeated coercive steps.

Senior Advocate PB Suresh, along with advocates Vipin Nair and Deeksha Gupta, appeared for the petitioner. The State has been granted four weeks to file its response.

Case Title: SONY A.S. vs. STATE OF KERALA

Case No.: SLP (C) No. 32492/2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta