The Supreme Court of India held that disciplinary action cannot be taken against judicial officers merely for allegedly wrong or inconsistent judicial orders, as doing so would seriously undermine judicial independence. In Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a judicial officer was removed from service on the ground that he adopted an inconsistent approach while granting bail in excise cases. The Supreme Court set aside the punishment, holding that an erroneous or even inconsistent exercise of judicial discretion does not amount to misconduct. For disciplinary action to lie, there must be clear proof of corruption, mala fides, or extraneous considerations, none of which were established. The Court cautioned High Courts against initiating mechanical disciplinary proceedings, warning of a “chilling effect” that would deter judges from exercising discretion fearlessly, particularly in bail matters. Judicial independence, the Court reiterated, is a basic feature of the Constitution and must be zealously protected. While affirming that genuine corruption must be dealt with strictly, the Court stressed the need to balance judicial accountability with institutional independence. The appellant was reinstated with full back wages and benefits, and the judgment was directed to be circulated to all High Courts.