Madhya Pradesh Judge Resigns Saying “Judiciary Failed Me” After Senior She Accused Of Harassment & Caste Bias Elevated To High Court
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 29th July, Madhya Pradesh judge resigns saying “Judiciary failed me” after the judicial officer she accused of sexual harassment and caste discrimination gets promoted to High Court. She called the system’s silence a betrayal of justice.
A woman judge from Madhya pradesh, Aditi gajendra sharmaresigned on Tuesday after expressing her opposition to the Supreme Court collegium’s recommendation to elevate district judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta to the state high court.
Sharma, a civil judge in Shahdol Districtaccused Gupta of mentally harassing her and discriminating against her based on caste. She had previously sought a hearing regarding her complaints but was unsuccessful.
Her resignation occurred just hours after the Central government approved the promotion of District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Gupta has not yet taken his oath of office.
In her resignation letter to the principal district judge of Shahdol, Sharma conveyed her disappointment with an institution that she feels has “failed to protect her.”
Sharma emphasized that her complaints were not anonymous and included documented evidence, yet she received no inquiry into them. She pointed out that even if an inquiry had taken place, she was never invited to provide her perspective.
Her resignation, she noted, was “not an act of revenge but a plea for accountability”highlighting that the “judiciary failed her.”
Sharma had previously written to the Supreme Court’s senior judges, including Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, regarding her concerns about Gupta’s promotion. His name had been rejected by the SC college in 2023 due to complaints, including Sharma’s. Despite an inquiry conducted by the high court chief justice, Gupta received a clean chit, and his name was resubmitted to the collegium for reconsideration without Sharma being called to testify.
Additionally, another complaint against Gupta related to the alleged leakage of confidential documents was investigated by a sitting Supreme Court judge, who found no evidence to support the claim.
Sharma, who was terminated from service in 2023 due to performance evaluations, successfully challenged her dismissal in the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who represents Sharmanoted that this case is not an isolated incident.
Jaising remarked,
“As she said, ‘the judiciary’s daughters’ have been let down by the judiciary itself. I agree. There is something very wrong with the process of appointing judges of the high court behind closed doors. Surprisingly, the judiciary and the government are on the same page,”
“It’s hypocritical to talk of wanting more women judges in the system when you cannot keep them there.”
Jaising suggested that the only way forward is to consider complaints from affected parties before appointing judges to ensure integrity and credibility.
“We lost a very good judicial officer with an unblemished record of service. She won in the judicial side but lost on the administrative side.”
In her letter to the Supreme Court judges, Sharma highlighted her petition against her dismissal, which included allegations of harassment against Gupta. She recounted several instances where Gupta, along with his wife, publicly humiliated her, actions that she believed had “undermined her dignity as a woman and judicial officer.”
When the Supreme Court ordered her reinstatement in February, it did not address the allegations against Gupta. Following her return to duty, she received an advisory from the high court’s administrative branch regarding her “behavior” as a judicial officer.
Prior to her termination, Sharma had filed a complaint and subsequently reached out to the high court again, requesting that her representation against Gupta be treated as a formal complaint. Her Supreme Court petition accused Gupta of misusing his authority, claiming that personal and professional conflicts had drawn his attention toward her.
The petition detailed her experiences as a trainee judge, highlighting the unwelcome behavior she faced from Gupta and his wife. They allegedly made disparaging remarks about her personal and professional life, disapproving of her friendship with their daughter, who was her classmate. Gupta’s wife reportedly advised her to “refrain” from showing personal connections with the children of higher-ranking officials.
Sharma expressed her commitment in her resignation,
“With every ounce of my moral strength and emotional exhaustion, I hereby resign from judicial service not because I lost faith in justice, but because justice lost its way inside the very institution sworn to protect it.”
She further added,
“I leave this institution with no medals, no celebration, and no bitterness, only the bitter truth that the judiciary failed me. But worse it failed itself.”
Sharma also mentioned in her resignation letter,
“I was not seeking revenge. I was crying for justice not just for myself, but for the institution I cherished and believed in even when it did not believe in me.”
She ended her letter,
“I sign off not as an officer of the court, but as a victim of its silence.”
She also added,
“And if even one judge, one registrar, one member of the Collegium reads this and feels unease then perhaps, my voice has done more justice than my robe ever could. “
Sharma’s resignation comes after she filed multiple complaints earlier this year with the President of India and the Supreme Court Collegium, asking them to reconsider Gupta’s promotion. She was also among six women judges dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh Government in June 2023.
The law department issued the termination orders based on findings from an administrative committee and a full court meeting of High Court judgeswhich deemed their performance during the probation period unsatisfactory.
The Supreme Court took notice of the terminations and ultimately ordered the reinstatement of all six judges, including Sharma.
In its ruling, the bench of Justest of BV Nagaretah or N. Ing Kisth emphasized the need for the Madhya Pradesh High Court to demonstrate “greater sensitivity” toward women judges, stating that “justice must also be seen to be done within judicial institutions.”
Following this directive, Sharma resumed her role as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Shahdol in March 2024.
In her letters from July 2025, Sharma appealed to both the President and the Supreme Court Collegium, asserting that “a person against whom there are serious unresolved allegations must not be rewarded with elevation.”
She emphasized that her situation was not merely about personal hardship but also about systemic indifference.