186 Calls to Woman Lawyer and 3 Covert Phones: Gujarat High Court Rejects Sacked Judge's Plea

The Gujarat High Court has firmly declined to grant any relief to former Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Amrutlal Vijoda, upholding the disciplinary order that dismissed him from judicial service. Emphasizing that judicial integrity must remain above reproach, the High Court observed that maintaining clandestine communications with an accused person and a practicing advocate is entirely unbecoming of a judicial officer. The bench affirmed that when a judicial arbiter compromises institutional decorum and violates service ethics, termination from service stands as the only proportionate and lawful penalty.

Covert Mobile Handsets and 186 Calls to a Woman Advocate

The disciplinary action stems from an extensive administrative probe that led to Vijoda's initial suspension in 2008. The former magistrate faced multiple allegations, including accepting illegal gratification to deliver favorable judicial orders, obtaining a personal loan without departmental sanction, and purchasing a private vehicle without notifying the High Court registry. Central to the charges was his possession of three anonymous mobile phone connections registered under different individuals' identities, one of which was active under the name of a practicing woman advocate. Detailed call records confirmed that Vijoda engaged in 186 private telephonic conversations with the lawyer between June 2007 and March 2008, while also utilizing these unregistered lines to contact an individual facing corruption charges.

Inquiry Proves Core Integrity Violations Leading to 2016 Sacking

During formal disciplinary proceedings, 12 specific charges were framed against the magistrate. Following a comprehensive fact-finding inquiry, the High Court committee concluded that four primary charges were proven beyond doubt, specifically focusing on his use of proxy communication devices and unauthorized proximity to active litigators. Consequent to these findings, the disciplinary authority passed an order in 2016 permanently removing Vijoda from his judicial post, an administrative dismissal he subsequently challenged through a judicial petition before the High Court.

High Court Bench: Judicial Decorum Requires Distance from Practicing Lawyers

Delivering its verdict on the petition, the High Court bench delivered a stern observation on judicial propriety, noting that if a presiding judge routinely contacts a practicing lawyer, that conduct in itself constitutes a gross compromise of judicial neutrality and decorum. The bench emphasized that the proven charges—which the petitioner admitted in principle—were not minor procedural oversights, but clear evidence demonstrating a critical lack of integrity. Reaffirming that preserving public trust in the justice system demands strict detachment between judicial officers and active advocates, the court found no valid ground to interfere with the penalty and dismissed Vijoda's petition.