The Supreme Court has expunged adverse remarks and strictures recorded by the Rajasthan High Court against a woman judicial officer over errors in a judgment, holding that the observations were unwarranted and made in violation of the principles of natural justice.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya allowed the appeal filed by the judicial officer, setting aside remarks made by the High Court in its order dated May 1, 2025.

Background of the Casea

The judicial officer, who belongs to the District Judge cadre of the Rajasthan Judicial Services, had delivered separate judgments on January 20, 2024, in two criminal cases arising from the same FIR registered in Jhunjhunu district.

The cases involved charges under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. One case concerned an adult accused, while the other involved a child in conflict with law who had been transferred for trial as an adult.

Both accused were convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

While hearing the child accused’s appeal against conviction and application for suspension of sentence, the Rajasthan High Court noticed that certain overlapping extracts of evidence and numerical details from one trial had inadvertently been incorporated into the judgment in the other case.

High Court’s Adverse Remarks

The High Court criticised the judicial officer, alleging that she had relied on a “cut, copy and paste” method and that the judgment had likely been prepared by a stenographer or clerk without being properly read and corrected.

It recorded adverse remarks against her and directed that she undergo judgment-writing training. The High Court also directed that a copy of its order be placed in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR), after obtaining her comments.

Judicial Officer’s Explanation

Before the Supreme Court, the judicial officer explained that the evidence and witnesses in both cases were substantially similar and intertwined.

She further stated that the Special POCSO Court had limited resources and that its sole stenographer had proceeded on leave. Consequently, she had dictated part of the judgment directly to a Lower Division Clerk and the remaining portion to the stenographer upon his return.

The errors, including incorrect witness serial numbers, were described as bona fide typographical mistakes that did not affect the substance or outcome of the judgments.

Supreme Court: Opportunity to Explain Was Necessary

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s adverse observations were uncalled for and avoidable. It noted that the judicial officer had not been given an opportunity to explain the circumstances before the strictures were recorded.

The Bench emphasised that criticism of a judicial order must be distinguished from adverse comments on the personal conduct or competence of the judicial officer.

Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that concerns about a judicial officer’s conduct should ordinarily be addressed through the administrative side of the High Court, where the officer can explain the circumstances.

The Court observed that adverse remarks could seriously damage a judicial officer’s career and have a chilling effect on the district judiciary.

Strictures Expunged

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem—the right to be heard.

Accordingly, it expunged the adverse remarks and strictures recorded in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the High Court’s order and set aside the directions concerning judgment-writing training and placement of the order in the judicial officer’s ACR.

The appeal was allowed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

Case Details