In Brief
Ram Murti Yadav, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his compulsory retirement at age 56 ordered by the High Court following an adverse vigilance enquiry into his acquittal of a criminal accused. The Supreme Court upheld the retirement, holding that when a Full Court recommends compulsory retirement following a Screening Committee's assessment, judicial review is extremely narrow and confined to examining whether the process was correctly observed and free from arbitrary or capricious grounds. The Court held that a single adverse entry regarding a judicial officer's integrity, even in the remote past and despite subsequent promotion, suffices for compulsory retirement, and that an error of judgment alone does not constitute proof of dishonesty.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.