Sikkim High Court Upholds Judge’s Suspension Amid Allegations
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the suspension of a judge accused of neglecting her judicial responsibilities by allowing her court clerk, known as a Peshkar, to record evidence while she remained in her chambers. Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque emphasized the gravity of the allegations, stating that if proven, they could constitute serious misconduct deserving of severe penalties.
Allegations and Suspension Details
Chief Justice Mustaque pointed out that over ten individuals, including lawyers and court staff, have already provided statements against the judge in question. “Suspension is a prerogative right of the employer,” noted the Chief Justice. He further explained that if an employer believes a suspended employee could interfere with an ongoing inquiry, it is within their legal rights to maintain the suspension.
The judge, identified as Bebika Chettri, was suspended on June 13. This action was taken by the Chief Justice in consultation with the judge-in-charge, forming a full court due to the limited number of judges available at the High Court. A subsequent show-cause notice alleged that Chettri had abandoned the courtroom while evidence was being recorded during an open court session, leaving her clerk and the public prosecutor to handle the proceedings.
Defense and Court’s Response
To defend the suspension, the High Court registry presented preliminary evidence in a sealed cover. The registry’s Senior Counsel argued that reinstating the judge during the investigation could intimidate local lawyers from testifying against her. Additionally, the registry highlighted a questionable incident where CCTV footage from the court premises was erased, noting that Chettri had visited the court on a Sunday following her suspension.
Chettri professed total innocence, asserting she had no involvement in the erasure of the CCTV footage. Her legal counsel argued that the suspension was void ab initio and contravened Ministry of Law & Justice guidelines. They contended that the High Court could not act against a judicial officer without a formal complaint supported by sworn affidavits and verifiable evidence.
More Read
Court’s Decision and Future Actions
The High Court dismissed the technical defenses raised by Chettri, clarifying that the suspension was based on internal administrative information rather than a third-party complaint. The Bench also rejected claims that all evidence must be disclosed to the employee at the suspension stage.
The Court ruled that Chettri would be entitled to access all relevant documents once a formal charge sheet is issued. To ensure a fair process, the Court imposed a deadline, requiring the High Court administration to complete the disciplinary inquiry within three months, provided Chettri cooperates. Should the administration fail to meet this timeline, the judge must be reinstated.
The court concluded the writ petition with these directives. Advocates Abhinav Kant Jha, Preeti Basnett, Anish Byahut, Ishan Gurung, Chodenla Tamang, and Yougen Sangpo Sherpa represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate N Rai, along with advocates Kazi Sangay Thupden, Prerana Rai, Srijana Bagdas, and Sogyal Topden Norbu Bhutia, appeared for the High Court administration.
