“The institution failed me”: Judge Aditi Gajendra Sharma’s account of defiance

JUST AS ADITI KUMAR SHARMA WAS REINSTATED into the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services as the 4th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahdol, pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the final order and judgment of February 28, 2025, two advisories, one dated March 10 and another of March 11, 2025, were issued to her regarding two complaints that had been kept in abeyance due to her termination from the services.

These complaints were filed by two advocates on separate occasions. One of them alleged that Sharma had refused to record a witness’s statement in a case. At the same time, the other alleged that she had written “unreasonable, unnecessary, and fabricated comments” against him and his client in the ordersheet of a case, and that she harbored ill-will towards him.

In both these advisories, Sharma was told to “behave properly with the Advocates so as to maintain cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar.” Notably, these advisories were proposed to be issued by the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court well before Sharma was wrongfully terminated from services; however, they were not issued until after her reinstatement, even though the said proposal formed part of the consideration which led the Full Court to conclude that her services should be terminated.

Sharma responded to these advisories and sent formal representations on March 29 and June 26, 2025 to the Principal Registrar, despite none being sought from her.

In these representations, Sharma challenged both the advisories, asserting their unjust nature. She emphasised that the advisories were a culmination of unfairly conducted and biased discreet inquiries that disregarded the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, she disclosed that, even prior to her termination, she had filed formal complaints against the mannerism of these inquiries, as well as the inquiry officer, the then District Judge (Inspection) of Jabalpur Zone, Rajesh Kumar Gupta.

In the March 29 representation, Sharma pointed out the flawed inquiry process, which involved procedural violations, the absence of credible evidence, her vilification, breach of duty by Gupta, and bias in findings that were unsupported by evidence and lacked objectivity. She laid bare the prejudice and past harassment that she was subjected to by Gupta when she was posted as a trainee judge at the District and Sessions Court, Rajgarh, between 2018 and 2020. Gupta was then an Additional District and Sessions Court Judge in the same District Court, a fact he had concealed when he was tasked with conducting the discreet enquiries on Sharma.

Sharma also highlighted that the discreet enquiries were contrary to the principles of natural justice as she was not afforded an opportunity to defend herself before her guilt was determined. She also reminded the Registrar General that the Supreme Court had dealt with that particular complaint in its February 28 judgment, and noted that the complaint was said to be “voluntarily withdrawn”, which is why the Court found it irrelevant to consider it.

In the second representation of June 27, she challenged the advisory for being based on a biased and procedurally flawed enquiry conducted by Gupta. She highlighted the lack of opportunity to be heard, her impeccable service record evident from her ACRs, pre-existing bias harbored by Gupta, the abuse of authority demonstrated by him, and the grave personal and professional consequences she faced due to all of this. In this representation, Sharma also prayed for an impartial in-house enquiry and sought permission to initiate legal action against Gupta.

Sharma highlighted that, in the past as well, she had raised formal complaints against Gupta, describing the gruesome details of the harassment meted out to her at his hands when they were both posted in Rajgarh.

What had made matters worse was that these acts of harassment were not just limited to Gupta but were also often administered by his wife, who treated Sharma with disrespect and also threatened to destroy her career.

These representations were not the only instance when Sharma had raised a complaint against Gupta. In a representation sent on July 19, 2023, about two months after she was wrongfully terminated from the state judicial services, Sharma had informed the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of the harassment she faced at the hands of Gupta. She had detailed each individual instance of such harassment, which included him screaming at her on multiple occasions, reprimanding her without reason, and threatening to end her career. The said representation also narrated an incident where Gupta had assaulted Sharma in the presence of other judicial officers, including the then Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rajgarh. Sharma says that Gupta would have hit her on that occasion if it were not for the intervention of other judicial officers who were present at the scene.