https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/high-court-registrar-general-cannot-suo-motu-initiate-disciplinary-action-against-judicial-officer-supreme-court-534611 [19/05, 08:32] Meta AI: That LiveLaw article covers a *Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 18, 2026*, clarifying who can start disciplinary action against judicial officers.

[19/05, 08:32] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/high-court-registrar-general-cannot-suo-motu-initiate-disciplinary-action-against-judicial-officer-supreme-court-534611
[19/05, 08:32] Meta AI: That LiveLaw article covers a *Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 18, 2026*, clarifying who can start disciplinary action against judicial officers.

*1. Case: _High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vs Deepali Sharma_ [SLP(C) No. 16520/2026]*

*Background*:
1. *Officer*: Deepali Sharma, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Uttarakhand
2. *Allegation*: Physically/mentally abused a 17-year-old girl employed as domestic help at her Haridwar residence. Anonymous complaint sent to HC email in 2020
3. *Action taken*: Registrar General initiated inquiry, suspended her, and she was later dismissed from service after departmental proceedings

*2. What the Supreme Court held – CJI Surya Kant & Justice Joymalya Bagchi*

*Core ruling*:
> _“The Registrar General of the High Court has absolutely no authority either in terms of the constitutional scheme or the statutory rules governing the service conditions of judicial officers to suo motu initiate disciplinary action against the judicial officer. He can only act for and on behalf of the Chief Justice and the judges of the High Court.”_

*Key points*:
1. *Article 235 power*: Disciplinary control over district judiciary vests _collectively in the High Court_ = Chief Justice + companion judges. Not in Registrar General alone.
2. *Valid initiation*: Disciplinary action must be _approved by the CJ or a committee of judges constituted by him_. Otherwise it’s _“void ab initio”_ = invalid from the start.
3. *Jurisdictional defect*: Here, no written order from CJ. Registrar General claimed _telephonic approval_, but SC said that’s _“abuse of power”_. RG _“assumed the role of the CJ”_.
4. *Result*: SC refused to interfere with Uttarakhand HC division bench order of Jan 2026 that set aside her dismissal and reinstated her. She’s back in service.

*3. What the HC had said earlier [Jan 2026]*
Bench of CJ G. Narendar & Justice Subhash Upadhyay held:
1. Case was _“no evidence”_ and _“a mountain made out of a molehill”_
2. Questioned why complaint wasn’t placed before CJ. RG can’t act on his own.
3. Censured judicial officers who conducted inquiry: _“manner and method…shocking”_

*4. Important legal principles reaffirmed*
1. *HC = CJ + Judges*: Under Article 235, _“High Court”_ means the full court, not Registry staff.
2. *RG is delegate only*: Can act _for_ CJ, but can’t start action suo motu. Needs explicit authorization.
3. *Foundation matters*: If initiation itself is illegal, merits of allegations become irrelevant. _“Jurisdictional infirmity goes to the root”_.
4. *Similar precedent*: Orissa HC in 2023 also exonerated its ex-RG who registered suo motu case without CJ approval – _“to err is human”_ but can’t violate procedure.

*Note*: SC clarified it _wasn’t_ ruling on whether the officer actually abused the girl. The case was decided on _“threshold issue of validity of initiation”_. Sr Adv Madhavi Divan for HC said victim had _“20+ injuries”_, but SC said foundational defect means inquiry fails.

Want the full judgment PDF or details of Article 235 jurisprudence on judicial discipline?
[19/05, 08:32] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court on Monday held that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer cannot be initiated unless they are authorised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by a committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice, ruling that the Registrar General has no independent authority to suo motu commence such action.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the reinstatement of a Civil Judge in Uttarakhand who had been dismissed from service following departmental proceedings over allegations that she had physically abused a minor girl employed as domestic help at her residence.

The Court, however, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations or the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, instead deciding the case on the threshold issue of whether the proceedings themselves were validly initiated.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the High Court of Uttarakhand(on its administrative side) challenging the judgment of the High Court reinstating the officer.

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from a “jurisdictional infirmity” from the very outset.

“The power under Article 235 of the Constitution, insofar as disciplinary control over judicial officers is concerned, has been expressly vested in the High Court and the High Court collectively, which necessarily shall comprise the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his companion judges,” the Court held.

It further ruled that unless disciplinary action is approved by the Chief Justice or by a committee of judges duly constituted by him, such proceedings cannot be lawfully initiated.

“Unless the disciplinary action is approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court, or the committee comprising of judges constituted by him, as his delegatees, purported disciplinary action for all intents and purposes shall be void ab initio.

The Registrar General of the High Court has no authority, either in terms of constitutional scheme or statutory rules governing judicial officers, to suo motu initiate disciplinary action against a judicial officer. He can only act on behalf of the Chief Justice and judges. The recourse not having been followed, the very foundation of disciplinary action against R1 was non est in law,” the bench observed.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the High Court, argued that the departmental inquiry had established grave misconduct by the officer. It was contended that the judicial officer had falsely victimised the minor girl, who was allegedly rescued with more than 20 injuries on her body.

Referring to these submissions, the Supreme Court noted the seriousness of the allegations but said the decisive issue before it was whether the inquiry had been initiated in accordance with law.

The Court said that once it found a foundational defect in the initiation of proceedings, it was unnecessary to enter into the factual controversy surrounding the allegations or the proportionality of punishment.

“What we find is that the inquiry proceedings in the present case, at the very inception, suffer from a jurisdictional infirmity which goes to the root of the matter,” the Court said.

The Court noted that the judicial officer, who was appointed in 2008, had already been reinstated pursuant to the High Court’s judgment.

Taking note of the broader circumstances, including the officer’s claim that she herself had faced harassment from certain senior judicial officers from the inception of the controversy, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the operative direction reinstating her.

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared for the respondent.

Case : HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Vs DEEPALI SHARMA | SLP(C) No. 16520/2026
[19/05, 08:32] Meta AI: You’re quoting the *LiveLaw report on the Supreme Court judgment dated 18-05-2026* in _High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vs Deepali Sharma_ [SLP(C) No. 16520/2026].

Here’s the structured summary:

*1. Core Legal Holding*
*CJI Surya Kant + Justice Joymalya Bagchi* ruled:
1. *Article 235 authority*: Disciplinary control over district judiciary vests _collectively in the “High Court”_ = Chief Justice + companion judges.
2. *Who can initiate*: Only _CJ or a committee of judges constituted by CJ_ can validly start disciplinary action against a judicial officer.
3. *Registrar General’s role*: Has _“no authority, either constitutional or statutory, to suo motu initiate disciplinary action”_. RG can act only _on behalf of CJ/judges_. Any action without CJ approval is _“void ab initio”_ = invalid from the start.

*2. Facts of the case*
**Officer** Deepali Sharma, Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Uttarakhand, appointed 2008
**Allegation** Physically abused 17-year-old girl employed as domestic help at Haridwar residence. Anonymous complaint emailed to HC in 2020
**Action taken** Registrar General initiated inquiry, she was suspended, then dismissed after departmental proceedings
**HC judgment** Division Bench of CJ G. Narendar & Justice Subhash Upadhyay set aside dismissal in Jan 2026, called it *“no evidence”* case, ordered reinstatement
**SC appeal** Uttarakhand HC (administrative side) challenged reinstatement
*3. Supreme Court’s approach*
1. *Did NOT go into merits*: Clarified it was _not examining_ whether she actually abused the girl or if 20+ injuries existed as Sr Adv Madhavi Divan argued.
2. *Threshold defect*: Decided only _“jurisdictional infirmity”_ – inquiry was started by RG without CJ’s written order. RG’s claim of _“telephonic approval”_ rejected as _“abuse of power”_.
3. *Result*: Refused to interfere with reinstatement. Officer continues in service. SC noted her _“outcry from beginning that she was victim of harassment by senior judicial officers”_.

*4. Why this matters*
1. *Protects judicial independence*: Prevents Registry from targeting judges without CJ/judges’ collective decision.
2. *Procedure over substance*: Even if misconduct allegations are grave, action must follow Article 235 procedure. _“Foundational defect goes to root”_.
3. *Article 235 explained*: _“High Court”_ means institution, not individual officers of Registry. Mirrors 2023 Orissa HC ruling where ex-RG was exonerated for registering suo motu case without CJ nod.

*Appearances*: Sr Adv Madhavi Divan for HC; Sr Adv Sonia Mathur for Deepali Sharma.

This is a significant precedent on _who holds the power to discipline subordinate judiciary_ – only the CJ/judges’ committee, never RG on his own.

Want the full judgment text or the Uttarakhand HC division bench order that SC upheld?