Case at a Glance
A district-cadre judicial officer in Rajasthan decided two connected special-court trials — one of them against an accused tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act — on the same day, and overlapping evidence extracts from one trial crept into the other judgment. While refusing to suspend the sentence of one convict, a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court accused her of ‘cut, copy and paste’ drafting, suggested the judgment was written by a stenographer and signed without reading, sent her for training at the Judicial Academy and ordered the remarks to be placed in her ACR. The Supreme Court expunged all of it, holding that the remarks were “uncalled for and avoidable”, were made without giving her any opportunity to explain, and that concerns about a judge’s conduct belong on the administrative side.
Two accused were charged in the same offence before a special court. Because one of them was a child in conflict with law who, after a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was transferred for trial as an adult, Section 23 of that Act barred a joint trial. The two sessions cases therefore ran separately before the same judicial officer, who on 20 January 2024 convicted both accused and sentenced each to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Because the witnesses and evidence overlapped, portions of the evidence summary from one trial were inadvertently carried into the other judgment.
When one convict’s criminal appeal and application for suspension of sentence came up, a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 1 May 2025 rejected the suspension application but, in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the order, recorded adverse remarks against the trial judge — alleging ‘cut, copy and paste’ drafting and that the judgment had likely been typed by a stenographer and signed without being read — and in paragraphs 17 and 18 directed that she undergo training at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy and that the order be placed in her ACR for 2024. The officer explained to the Supreme Court that the special court had limited staff, its only stenographer was on leave, part of the judgment was dictated directly to an LDC, and the errors were bona fide typographical mistakes that did not affect the outcome.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a High Court, while hearing an appeal or a bail application on the judicial side, record strictures against a trial judge and direct training and an ACR entry without first giving the officer an opportunity to explain?
Correct the Order, Not the Officer, on the Judicial Side
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the Bench, found the remarks “uncalled for and avoidable” and noted that they were made without any show-cause opportunity to the officer, in breach of natural justice. Exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court should have shown “greater magnanimity”; castigating a judge for typographical errors that did not change the result was avoidable. The Court stressed that such remarks can seriously damage a judicial officer’s career and have a chilling effect on the district judiciary, and said it was unable to accept that she had acted in dereliction of duty.
Relying on Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, (2001) 02 SC CK 0054 and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar, (2024) 11 SC CK 0037, the Court reiterated the difference between criticising an erroneous order and commenting adversely on a judge’s personal conduct, and that strictures against judicial officers should ordinarily be avoided on the judicial side. Even if an error had been committed, the officer had to be heard first — condemning her unheard was contrary to audi alteram partem. Following Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal, the proper course where a High Court judge has concerns about an officer’s conduct is to record them in a remark slip for the Chief Justice on the administrative side.
What the Court Actually Held
- The strictures in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the High Court’s order dated 1 May 2025 cannot be sustained and are expunged.
- The directions in paragraphs 17 and 18 requiring Judicial Academy training and placement of the order in the officer’s ACR for 2024 are set aside.
- Adverse remarks against a judicial officer made without an opportunity to explain violate natural justice; inadvertent typographical errors that do not affect the outcome are no ground to castigate a judge.
- Concerns about a judicial officer’s conduct should be taken to the Chief Justice on the administrative side; a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Registrar General for placement before the Chief Justice.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects trial judges, who work with thin staff and heavy dockets, from career-damaging remarks recorded in passing in appellate orders.
- It restates a clear procedure: on the judicial side correct the error; on the administrative side, with a hearing, address conduct.
- It reminds appellate benches that careless drafting can be pointed out without branding the officer, and that an ACR entry is a serious civil consequence.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Judicial Officers
- If a superior court records strictures without hearing you, an appeal or SLP seeking expunction is maintainable and has strong support in this line of precedent.
- Explain staffing constraints and the nature of the error on affidavit, as the officer did here.
- Typographical or transposition errors that do not affect the result are not dereliction of duty.
For Counsel
- When pointing out drafting errors in a trial judgment, confine arguments to their effect on the merits rather than inviting personal remarks.
- Cite Kaushal Singh, Sonu Agnihotri and Shuvendu Saha when seeking expunction of judicial-side strictures.
- The convict’s appeal itself is unaffected; the Supreme Court dealt only with the remarks and directions against the judge.
Key Takeaways
- No adverse remarks against a judge without first hearing the judge.
- Typographical errors that do not change the outcome do not justify castigation.
- Training directions and ACR entries ordered on the judicial side were set aside.
- Conduct concerns go to the Chief Justice on the administrative side, through a remark slip.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court decide the convict’s appeal?
No. The appeal before it was by the judicial officer, limited to the remarks and directions against her in the High Court’s order of 1 May 2025 refusing suspension of sentence.
What exactly was set aside?
The strictures in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the High Court order, and the directions in paragraphs 17 and 18 for training at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy and placing the order in the officer’s ACR for 2024.
What should a High Court judge do if a trial judge’s work seems careless?
According to the Court, the concern should be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, for example through a remark slip, so that the officer can be heard before any adverse view is formed.
Conclusion
The judgment is a firm reminder that the district judiciary’s independence depends on fair treatment from the courts above it. Errors in a judgment can be corrected on appeal; the officer’s reputation cannot be dealt with in the same breath without a hearing.
Practical takeaway: Strictures, training directions or ACR entries against a judicial officer recorded on the judicial side without notice are vulnerable to being expunged; the correct route is the administrative side, with an opportunity to explain.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com