Judicial independence requires caution before punishing adjudicative decisions

The appellant was removed on the basis of bail orders he had passed. The orders concerned applications under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. The Court distinguished judicial decision-making from proof of corrupt conduct. Discipline must not become a mechanism for penalising a lawful judicial view. At the same time, genuine misconduct may be examined on adequate evidence. The question is whether the material establishes more than an arguable error. The four orders did not provide that additional proof. The Court restored the protection of evidence-based scrutiny. Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. | 2026 INSC 7