REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24570 OF 2024)

NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This case highlights the unfortunate plight of a judicial officer (appellant herein) who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service. The sole and exclusive basis on which the appellant has been removed are four judicial orders by which he enlarged certain parties thereon

Signature Not Verified

CHANDRESH

Date: 2026.01.05

Reason:on bail. Those four orders were contrasted with fourteen other

orders of bail and after finding that in the four orders Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (for short the “Excise Act”) was not referred to, action has been taken. According to the High Court, in the fourteen other orders the appellant referred to the said Section implying thereby that he was conscious of the existence of the said Section on the statute. Section 59-A prescribes what has now famously come to be known as “twin conditions” for grant of bail.

3. The question before us is whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant from service?

4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant joined service on 31.10.1987 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service. The appellant scaled the ladder up and in 2003 was promoted as Additional District Judge and in September, 2008 was confirmed in the said post. On 16.05.2011, he was transferred to Khargone, District Mandaleshwar (MP), where he joined as First Additional District & Sessions Judge. In the course of discharge of his duties, he dealt with several matters, including bail applications under the Excise Act.

5. One Jaipal Mehta, a resident of Jaitapur, Khargone, lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur. The complaint which did not set out any details of the bail orders and which was in very general terms reads as under:-

“Subject: Regarding disposal of cases under Section 34(2)

of IPC.

Sir, In reference to above subject matter, it is requested that First ADJ Sh. Suliya posted in Khargone, District-West Nimar, Mandleshwar by taking bribe through his Steno namely Anil Joshi, Clerk, is granting bails in the cases of Section 34/2 of Excise Act i.e. of 50 Bulk Ltrs. of liquor, whereas, ADJ/Sessions Judge has no power to allow said bail applications. Said Bails are allowed by the High Court. Anil Joshi, Steno challenges in each and every case that either you bring case of 302, 307, Claim or Civil Case, I have good setting with sir, I will get it resolved, rest you have to pay money as per my wishes. Due to such corrupt employee, the judiciary is getting defamed. Injustice is being done with the aggrieved parties in place of giving them justice. Who will be responsible for it? Previously in the year 1995-196, the serious complaints of bribe were also made against the said corrupt employee, on which, no action was taken. Aforesaid employee is posted in Khargone since last 25 years and is earning money by doing setting with Advocates openly. If the enquiry of his account be conducted, then, the truth will be exposed. If, the trust of public loses confidence in judiciary then, will be possible of military rule jungle raj.”

6. It will be seen that according to the complaint, the allegation was that the appellant was taking bribe through his steno, namely, Anil Joshi for grant of bail in cases under the Excise Act in which the quantity of seized liquor was 50 Bulk liters or more; that the said Anil Joshi was claiming that he will get the work done through the appellant for extraneous consideration; that due to such corrupt employee, the judiciary was getting defamed; that even in 1995-96, se