The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has expunged adverse remarks and strictures passed by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court against a District Judge Cadre judicial officer. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the strictures were “uncalled for,” emphasizing that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard and that higher courts should exercise restraint. The Court also directed all High Courts to consider framing rules mandating the disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications.
The appeal was filed by Kaushal Singh, a judicial officer from Rajasthan, challenging an order dated May 3, 2024, by the Rajasthan High Court, which made critical observations about his conduct while granting bail to an accused.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from First Information Report (FIR) No. 224 of 2022, registered at Police Station Gegal, Ajmer, for offences including attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case involved multiple accused, including two individuals named Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi.
The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi on December 16, 2022, noting that the allegation of inflicting the lethal injury was against the co-accused, Sethu @ Angrej.
Subsequently, on December 19, 2022, three bail applications, including one for Sethu @ Angrej, came before the appellant-Judicial Officer, Mr. Kaushal Singh, who was acting as a Link Officer for the Sessions Court. It was argued that the case of the applicants was similar to that of Sethu @ Haddi, who had already been granted bail. The judgment notes that the appellant-Judicial Officer, appearing to be under a “misconception that the life-threatening injuries were attributed to the said Sethu @ Haddi,” applied the principle of parity and granted bail to Sethu @ Angrej and other co-accused. The order also noted that the officer “omitted to consider his criminal antecedents.”
Following this, the complainant filed an application for cancellation of bail, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on July 6, 2023, who observed that the court had been misled.
High Court’s Strictures
The accused, Sethu @ Angrej, challenged the cancellation of his bail before the Rajasthan High Court. On May 3, 2024, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the bail application and passed severe strictures against the appellant-Judicial Officer.
The High Court observed that the officer had passed the bail order “in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused.” It was noted that the officer failed to consider that Sethu @ Angrej was the principal accused who had caused the lethal injury. The High Court further stated that the officer had improperly applied the precedent in Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan and ignored the mandate in Jugal v. State of Rajasthan, which required the presiding officer to incorporate the criminal record of a bail applicant in a tabular form.
The High Court concluded that the officer’s act “tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court” and directed that a copy of its order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal from the judicial officer, set aside the strictures. The bench, in its judgment authored by Justice Mehta, began its analysis by stating, “Suffice it to say that the law is well-settled by a catena of decisions rendered by this Court that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.”
The Court then heavily relied on its previous decisions in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54 and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382. Quoting from ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, the Court observed:
“The judicial officer is condemned unheard which is violative of principles of natural justice. A member of subordinate judiciary himself dispensing justice should not be denied this minimal natural justice so as to shield against being condemned unheard… The harm caused by such criticism or observation may be incapable of being undone.”
The judgment further highlighted the demoralizing effect of such public criticism on the judiciary. The Court suggested a safer alternative course:
“The conduct of a judicial officer, unworthy of him, having come to the notice of a Judge of the High Court hearing a matter on the judicial side, the lis may be disposed of by pronouncing upon the merits thereof… but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement criticism of, or observations on the ‘conduct’ of the subordinate judicial officer… Simultaneously, but separately, in office proceedings may be drawn up inviting attention of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the facts…”
The Court noted that the entire foundation of the High Court’s order was its judgment in Jugal (supra), which has since been reversed by the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court stated, “we are of the firm opinion that the strictures passed by the High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for and hence, the same are expunged.”
Direction to High Courts on Bail Applications
Before parting with the case, the Court addressed the larger issue of considering criminal antecedents in bail matters. It took note of Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules, which makes it mandatory for a bail applicant to disclose their involvement in other criminal cases.
Feeling that a similar provision should exist across the country, the Supreme Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts “so that incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective Rules can be considered, if such provision does not exist from earlier.”
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order was modified to the extent of expunging the strictures.
