The Punjab and Haryana High Court has severely criticized a trial court judge for relying on a “pop-up” notification from a mobile application of an online legal portal while deciding an anticipatory bail plea.
Justice Sumeet Goel, in a recent order, held that reliance on pop-up notifications or brief extracts displayed by apps, online magazines, or unverified digital platforms cannot be treated as a legitimate or authoritative source of law. The Court observed that “casual dependence on digital alerts cannot be the basis for determining the rights and liberties of individuals.”
Background of the Case
The matter arose during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea in a case related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. During the proceedings, the High Court scrutinized the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, Hem Raj, on June 11, 2025.
Justice Goel noticed that the trial judge had declined bail after recalling a notification from a legal portal’s mobile application regarding a Supreme Court observation on NDPS matters. When the High Court sought comments on the rationale behind the decision, the judicial officer acknowledged that he had relied on the pop-up notification and even enclosed a screenshot of the same as justification.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon examining the reply and the conduct of the judicial officer, the High Court observed that the judge had relied merely on the headlines of the online magazine’s pop-up and “had not bothered to read the entire judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court, much less understanding the import thereof.”
Justice Goel emphasized that while technology plays a role in keeping legal practitioners and judges updated, it cannot replace the rigour of proper verification.
“While technology may assist in staying updated with legal developments, it cannot substitute proper judicial scrutiny and verification,” the High Court held.
The Court laid down clear guidelines on what constitutes acceptable material for judicial reliance. Justice Goel stated:
“Judicial orders must be rooted in authentic sources such as reported judgments, official publications or certified copies… Judicial orders must be founded strictly on authentic and verifiable legal material such as reported judgments, official publications, law journals of established credibility or certified copies. Any form of casual or indirect reference, especially upon digital alerts, only by itself, cannot be the basis for determining the rights and liberties of the individuals.”
The Court further remarked that the sanctity of judicial orders demands a disciplined approach, and “indiscriminate reliance on unverified digital material has the potential to undermine the integrity of the judicial process.”
Directions Issued
The High Court has taken a serious view of the procedural lapse. Justice Goel directed the Registrar General of the High Court to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration regarding “actions required to be undertaken” against the judicial officer, Hem Raj.
Furthermore, to prevent such instances in the future, the High Court ordered that all judicial officers in the states of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh be “duly sensitized/trained regarding responsible and judicious use of online information/technology.”
The High Court concluded that subordinate courts must not adopt the practice of relying on news portals, legal blogs, mobile apps, or digital notifications without verifying the actual judgments from authentic sources.
