Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma withdraws her resignation after alleging harassment by District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Case sparks debate on judicial accountability, collegium system, and whistleblower protection in India.
Introduction
In a case that highlights the intersection of personal grievance and institutional accountability, Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) Aditi Kumar Sharma has withdrawn her resignation from judicial service. Sharma had earlier accused District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta of harassment and protested his elevation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Her decision to resume office came after an internal two-member High Court committee assured her that her grievances would be addressed fairly and in accordance with the law.
Protest Resignation
On July 30, 2025, Gupta was sworn in as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, despite multiple complaints against him. In protest, Sharma submitted her resignation letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, writing:
“I resign my judicial office not out of a loss of faith in justice, but out of a loss of justice in the very institution…”
Her resignation was seen not as a routine departure but as a symbolic protest against the promotion of a judicial officer facing misconduct allegations.
Allegations Against Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Sharma was not alone. At least two other judicial officers had filed similar complaints against Gupta, citing improper conduct. However, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation in early July 2025.
On July 28, 2025, the Union Government cleared the recommendation.
On July 30, 2025, Gupta officially took oath as a High Court judge.
These developments deepened Sharma’s protest, ultimately leading to her resignation.
Institutional Response
Formation of an Internal Committee
Following Sharma’s resignation, the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted a two-member internal committee on August 11, 2025, tasked with reviewing her complaints.
The committee assured Sharma that:
She would not face institutional alienation.
She could pursue redressal through administrative or judicial means.
Her dignity and concerns would be fully protected.
Reinstatement
On the basis of these assurances, Sharma withdrew her resignation and was reinstated as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Shahdol on August 20, 2025.
Larger Implications
Judicial Accountability and the Collegium System
This case raises pressing questions:
Should judges facing unresolved complaints be considered for elevation?
Does the collegium system ensure transparency and accountability?
The Collegium’s recommendation, despite formal objections, has reignited the debate about whether internal judicial processes are robust enough to assess a judge’s character and fitness.
Protection for Judicial Whistleblowers
Sharma’s protest resignation underscores the need for stronger whistleblower protection within the judiciary. Without proper safeguards, judicial officers who raise concerns risk institutional isolation.
Symbolic Impact
Her act of protest — followed by reinstatement — serves as a reminder that judicial accountability cannot be compromised in the name of seniority or expediency. It emphasizes the urgent need for a transparent internal grievance redressal mechanism.
Conclusion
The case of Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma illustrates the delicate balance between individual grievances and institutional credibility. While Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta continues in his elevated position, the controversy surrounding his promotion has amplified calls for reform in the judicial appointment system.
The core question remains: Can the Indian judiciary strengthen its internal auditing mechanisms to prevent future crises of confidence?
Sharma’s stand — both her resignation and withdrawal — may serve as a catalyst for change, urging the judiciary to prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability.
