The high courts should undertake periodic evaluation of presiding officers to rid it of inefficient and corrupt judges, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The judgment is considered significant for the maintenance of the efficacy and integrity of the justice delivery system.

Dismissing the appeals filed by three judges who were compulsorily retired from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, a bench comprising Justice M B Shah and Justice A R Lakshmanan said it was a must for the high courts to undertake repeated scrutiny of the service records of judicial officers.

Terming the lower judiciary as the "foundation of the judicial system", Justice Shah, writing for the bench, said, "We hope the high courts would take appropriate steps regularly for weeding out the deadwood or the persons polluting the justice delivery system."

"Judicial service is not a service in the sense of employment," the bench noted. "As they were discharging their duties in exercise of the sovereign judicial power of the State, their honesty and integrity was expected to be beyond doubt."

Their honesty and integrity should be reflected in their overall reputation, Justice Shah said. "The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility," he added.

The three judges were compulsorily retired after they attained the age of 58 years. This decision was taken by a committee of the high court judges and their appeal against the decision of the committee was rejected by the high court on the judicial side.

"If such evaluation is done by the committee of the high court judges and is affirmed in the writ petitions, except in very exceptional circumstances, the court would interfere with the same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authorities," the Supreme Court said.

Referring to the allegations that the charges of corruption were not being proved by direct evidence, the bench said that it was impossible to get positive evidence to arrive at a conclusion that a presiding officer was of doubtful integrity.

"In the present system, reliance is required to be placed on the higher officer who had the opportunity to watch the performance of the concerned officer from close quarters and formation of opinion with regard to overall reputation enjoyed by the concerned officer would be the basis," it said.

Justice Shah reiterated that to keep the stream of justice unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers after a specified age or completion of specified years of service was a must by each and every high court.