In a rare and hard-hitting judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has drawn attention to what it described as a caste-driven, feudal culture within the judiciary. The court made a striking comparison, saying that High Court judges often act like “savarnas” (upper castes), while district-level judges are treated like “shudras” , or worse, like the oppressed characters from Les Misérables.
These strong words came during a case involving Additional District and Sessions Judge Jagat Mohan Chaturvedi, who was removed from service in 2014. His dismissal followed his decision to grant bail in four criminal cases linked to the high-profile Vyapam scam, despite objections from the state prosecution.
After reviewing the case, the High Court ruled that Chaturvedi had done nothing illegal or corrupt. His decisions, though possibly differing from the majority view, were within his rights as a judge. The bench ordered his dismissal to be reversed, and instructed that all pension and retirement benefits be restored. The state was also directed to pay him ₹5 lakh as compensation for the professional damage and personal hardship he had endured over the years.
What Did the Judges Say?
The ruling came from a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, who did not hold back in expressing concern over how the judicial system functions — especially the treatment of lower court judges.
Here’s what they highlighted:
Feudal Power Dynamics: The judges said that the relationship between the High Court and the lower judiciary resembled that of a feudal landlord and his servant, rather than a modern system built on mutual respect and constitutional values. According to them, this power imbalance has become so normalized that it’s almost invisible.
Caste Analogies in Court Culture: They noted that within this structure, High Court judges behave like upper-caste elites, while district judges are often reduced to the status of lower castes — expected to obey, not think independently. The use of the word “shudra” was not literal, but symbolic of the lack of dignity and autonomy afforded to judges in the lower courts.
Examples of Submissive Practices: The court provided real-world examples — lower court judges meeting senior judges at railway stations, carrying their luggage, or standing for long meetings without being offered a seat. These were described as outdated, colonial-style customs that have no place in a modern democratic institution.
Atmosphere of Fear: More troubling, the court said, was the culture of fear that prevents lower court judges from using their own judgment. Many avoid granting bail or issuing independent orders, worried that they’ll face disciplinary action or bad performance reviews. As a result, decisions are made not in the pursuit of justice, but to avoid conflict with superiors.
Mental Toll: The judges used the phrase “psychological emaciation” to describe how this culture wears down a judge’s confidence and self-worth. It leads to a justice system that is more focused on pleasing higher authorities than upholding the law.
Why It Matters
This judgment highlights a quiet but dangerous crisis in the Indian judiciary — one where judges at the grassroots level often feel powerless and intimidated, even though they are expected to act independently under the Constitution.
The court warned that such a toxic environment encourages unfair outcomes — where deserving bail is denied, or weak cases result in convictions — simply because judges are scared of stepping out of line. In such an atmosphere, justice takes a back seat, and self-preservation becomes the priority.
The ruling emphasized that when conformity is rewarded and dissent is punished, the entire foundation of fair justice is at risk.
A Strong Call for Reform
The judges made a clear and urgent appeal to the judiciary: this culture must change. They called on the High Court itself to introspect and ensure that district judges are respected as independent officers, not treated like subordinates in a rigid hierarchy.
They warned that public awareness, especially through social media and digital platforms, is growing — and people will no longer stay silent when they see injustice, even within the judicial system.
In their final message, the judges reminded everyone that real justice cannot exist in a system built on fear, ego, and hierarchy. It can only thrive where every judge — whether in the High Court or a small district courtroom — is allowed to work with dignity, fairness, and freedom.
