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.
Gupta was also made a party to the independent writ petition that Sharma had filed before the Supreme Court challenging her termination. In this petition as well, she had raised the issue of harassment, prejudice, and bias by Gupta. However, to focus on her reinstatement and to put an end to the litigation fatigue, Sharma dropped him as a respondent from her petition, hoping that this would also put an end to the discrimination she had been subjected to. However, her hopes withered when she was issued these advisories based on bogus discreet inquiries upon her reinstatement.
Despite all of this, the Collegium of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recommended the Gupta’s name for elevation to the bench of the High Court.
Distraught, Sharma wrote representations on July 7 to the Chief Justice of India and other Collegium judges, as well as to the President of India. She expressed her disbelief at the recommendation and tried to bring the conduct of Gupta to the notice of the Supreme Court and the President. She highlighted that Gupta had not only harassed her, but had demonstrated a pattern of disrespect and harassment with many of his fellow and junior judges throughout his various postings in different districts and jurisdictions. She highlighted that her case was hardly the only one where a complaint was raised against Gupta.
A few other reported incidents also exist. One such complaint was filed by the Principal District Judge (Family Court), Rajgarh, in 2018. The judge had raised serious allegations against Gupta of abusing another senior judge, using derogatory language against the judge, making discourteous comments about the character of his wife, and threatening to kill him or have him killed if he ever saw him – all of this in full public view and the presence of other judicial officers and court staff. The complainant judge further states that when he tried to calm Gupta down by asking him to sort his grievances privately, he started abusing him as well.
Another incident occurred in 2022, when a Scheduled Caste Additional District Judge from Dhar sent a representation to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhar. In this representation, the judge narrated the abuse and harassment he faced when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Gupta in Ratlam.
These complaints also name other judicial officers targeted by Gupta. The eerie similarity in all these incidents is that Gupta would publicly abuse his fellow judicial officers, demonstrate a behaviour of disrespect and threaten them with adverse consequences, which included threats of ending careers and vigilance inquiries.
Furthermore, this was not the first instance in which Gupta’s name was considered for the judgeship of the High Court either. He was also being considered for elevation in 2023; however, the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, had rejected the recommendation due to the serious allegations against Gupta, some of which are illustrated above.
This time, however, either due to lack of will, reluctance, or ignorance, the Collegium did not care to dig deep enough; if they had, it would not have taken much to know where all the bodies are buried. On July 2, the Supreme Court Collegium cleared Gupta’s elevation and forwarded the recommendation to the Law Ministry. Thereafter, on July 28, the President gave her assent to his elevation. This development prompted Sharma to tender her resignation to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on July 29.
Disclosure: The author had represented Aditi Kumar Sharma in her petition before the Supreme Court. The views expressed herein are the author’s own, not Aditi’s.