Supreme Court flags rising trend of judges issuing flurry of orders before retirement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over what it described as a growing trend of judges passing a large number of judicial orders just before retirement, comparing the practice to a batter hitting sixes in the final overs of a cricket match. The court observed that such conduct, if driven by factors beyond routine judicial work, could raise questions about institutional discipline and judicial propriety.

The remarks were made by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, while hearing a petition filed by a principal and district judge from Madhya Pradesh . The judicial officer had challenged a full court decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that placed him under suspension just ten days before his scheduled retirement on November 30, allegedly over two judicial orders passed shortly before he was due to demit office.

“Petitioner just before retirement started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,” the Chief Justice observed during the hearing, adding separately that there is a noticeable increase in judges passing several orders close to their retirement dates.

The petitioner was suspended on November 19 following a full court decision of the high court. Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi , appearing on his behalf, argued that the suspension was legally untenable as judicial officers cannot ordinarily be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely for passing judicial orders. He submitted that the officer had an impeccable service record with consistently high ratings in his annual confidential reports and that any error in judicial orders could be corrected through appellate mechanisms.

The bench broadly agreed with the principle that disciplinary action should not normally be initiated against a judicial officer for erroneous decisions. However, the Chief Justice drew a clear distinction between judicial error and misconduct, observing that while a judge cannot be punished for a wrong order, the situation would be different if the orders were found to be palpably dishonest or influenced by extraneous considerations.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also noted that on November 20 it had directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to implement an enhancement of the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. As a consequence, the petitioner is now scheduled to retire on November 30, 2026. The bench pointed out that the officer was unaware of this extension at the time he passed the disputed orders.

The court questioned why the officer had approached the Supreme Court directly instead of challenging the suspension before the high court. Sanghi responded that since the suspension arose from a full court decision, the officer believed it appropriate to seek relief from the apex court. The bench, however, observed that full court decisions have been set aside in judicial proceedings on several occasions and that the high court remained the appropriate forum.

The Supreme Court also expressed disapproval of the judicial officer seeking details of his suspension through applications under the Right to Information Act , noting that it was not expected of a senior judicial officer to adopt such a route when a representation could have been made internally.

Declining to entertain the petition at this stage, the bench granted liberty to the officer to submit a representation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking recall of the suspension order and directed the high court to decide the representation within four weeks.

The Supreme Court’s observations have brought renewed attention to patterns of judicial activity close to retirement. While there is no uniform or officially compiled data tracking orders passed specifically in the final weeks of judges’ tenures, past records show that the number of cases disposed of by judges in their last month in office has varied significantly. Some former Chief Justices disposed of only a handful of matters in their final weeks, while others decided several cases, reflecting differing individual work styles rather than a uniform practice.

Recent retirements from high courts also indicate that high disposal figures are often the result of sustained productivity over long careers rather than a sudden surge at the end of service. Several judges who retired in the past year recorded disposals running into tens of thousands over their entire tenure, underscoring that judicial output is usually spread across years rather than concentrated solely in the final phase.

The apex court’s remarks, however, underline the need to distinguish between legitimate judicial efficiency and conduct that may compromise institutional discipline, particularly as judges approach the end of their service.