NEW DELHI: At a time when more than four crore cases are pending in courts, leaving litigants clamoring for speedy justice, a Subdistrict of Bihar on Wednesday told the High Council that he has been suspended by the Patna High Court, ostensibly for completing trials at high speed and seeking retroactive promotion.
Appearing before the district judge SK Rai, senior lawyer Vikas Singh asked for a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana for filing his petition early, as the district judge is ostensibly under suspension for completing two Pocso cases within one day and four days and imposing life sentences and death sentences respectively. The CJI agreed to file the petition for the hearing on Friday.
It is not clear from Rai’s petition whether the HC has suspended him for delivering speedy justice, as portrayed by the senior counsel for the CJI-run bank. Rai cited the two Pocso cases in which he delivered sentences within days of competing trials, but his story hinted at a chain of events that began with the denial of the first promotion in 2014.
Rai joined Bihar Judicial Services in 2007 as a civil judge (junior division) and placed 7th among 318 shortlisted candidates. While he held that position in Jehanabad, he was considered for promotion to civil judge (upper division), but was not given by the HC, which apparently investigated his rulings and removal rate. When he inquired about the reason for the denial of promotion, he was told there was a problem writing his verdict.
However, based on the same rulings considered earlier, he was promoted to senior division civil judge the following year. In 2018-19, the HC considered the names of bailiffs for promotion to the position of subdistrict judge (entry level). On the basis of his rulings, he was promoted to subdistrict court judge.
After being promoted, the petitioner sent a statement to the HC in December 2020 arguing that, as no negative comments had been made against him since 2007, his promotion to the post of civil judge (upper chamber) would be deemed to have been given in 2013-14 instead of 2014-15 because a year delay has made him subordinate to his party members and even the bailiffs who were subordinate to him.
The HC responded in September last year by communicating the rejection of his representation and issuing a statement to him on “why one of the minor penalties under Rule 11 of the Bihar Judicial Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2020 is not imposed on him for questioning the process of evaluating judgments and raising groundless issue of personal bias and impartiality against the person who had judged the judgments.”