New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary judge of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), dismissing his plea that the decision was punitive and arbitrary.
The court clarified that the removal was a termination simpliciter based on overall unsuitability, not punitive or stigmatic, and therefore did not require protections under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Details of The Aman Pratap Singh Judge Controversy
In September 2024, a video clip from court proceedings involving the probationary judge — later identified as Aman Pratap Singh — began circulating widely on social media. The video showed an apparent altercation between the judge and a litigant during a hearing, raising serious questions about judicial conduct.
The judge was accused in media reports of being under the influence of alcohol at the time, though official inquiries did not find any incriminating evidence of substance use in his courtroom.
Delhi High Court Ruling on Aman Pratap Singh Judge Controversy
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court — consisting of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan — rejected the judge’s petition challenging his termination. The court upheld government orders dated 10 October 2024 and 14 October 2024, which formally ended his services under Rule 14 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
The court explicitly stated that the termination was not punitive and did not invoke stigmatic language in its order. Therefore, procedural safeguards normally required for disciplinary proceedings, such as those under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, were not applicable.
Why the Court Found the Termination Valid
While the viral video became the focal point in public discussions, the High Court stressed that the decision to terminate was based on a broader review of the judge’s overall suitability for service, including:
- An adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dated 29 August 2024, predating the viral video incident, which criticized the judge’s conduct in court.
- Multiple complaints and records presented before the Full Court regarding unprofessional behaviour — including being described as “extremely rude” to lawyers and below-average judicial output in judgments.
- The absence of any formal finding of guilt or misconduct in the traditional sense; rather, a broad assessment of unsuitability during probation.
The Bench concluded that the judge’s employment was legitimately terminated as a probationer found unsuitable for permanent continuation.
Probationary Judges: Legal Standards Explained
Judges appointed on probation under the DHJS Rules do not gain permanent status unless they satisfactorily complete the probation period. A termination during probation — termed termination simpliciter — can be enforced without the procedural guarantees normally required in disciplinary actions, provided it does not involve punitive findings of misconduct.
This distinction was crucial in the Court’s assessment. The judgment clarified that an act of termination — when not couched in punitive or stigmatic terms — does not trigger constitutional safeguards like mandatory inquiries or hearings under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Broader Implications for Judicial Accountability
The judgement highlights a critical aspect of judicial accountability in India’s legal system:
- Probationary evaluation of judicial officers remains a tool for courts to assess temperament, conduct, and performance without formally initiating disciplinary action.
- Public perception vs official records: While public attention may focus on isolated incidents like viral videos, courts consider comprehensive service records and professional assessments.
- Upholding institutional standards: The judiciary maintains internal standards to ensure the quality and integrity of judges even during early stages of service.
