In an unusual move, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated suo motu proceedings and directed its own administration to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The action challenges orders passed by a Single Bench of the same court, which contained “damning and disparaging remarks” against a District Judiciary judge and recommended disciplinary action based on perceived “ulterior motives.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal, took cognizance of the matter, stating it has a duty as the “guardian of the District Judiciary” to protect it from excesses and ensure its independence is not “emasculated.”
Background of the Case
The issue originated from two separate orders passed by a Single Bench at the High Court’s Gwalior seat on September 12, 2025. The orders were in the matters of Roop Singh Parihar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Imratlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, both arising from the same criminal case involving alleged embezzlement of compensation funds.
The Single Bench was hearing repeat applications for regular bail. In the underlying case, the trial court, presided over by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (ADSJ) of Shivpuri, Shri Vivek Sharma, had discharged the accused Roop Singh Parihar from charges under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 107 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, framing a charge only under Section 406 of the IPC for criminal breach of trust.
While dismissing the bail applications, the Single Bench made adverse observations in paragraph 12 of its orders, which became the subject of the Division Bench’s suo motu action.
The Disparaging Remarks
The Division Bench termed the Single Bench’s directions as “chilling.” The impugned paragraph from the Single Bench’s order read:
“A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat, Jabalpur and to put up the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking permission for conducting an inquiry and for taking disciplinary action against 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Shri Vivek Sharma), Shivpuri who had discharged the present applicant from the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 107 of IPC without considering the facts of the case and to give undue advantage to the applicant to get benefit of bail. Therefore, it appears that 1st Additional Sessions Judge has ulterior motive in holding charge under section 406 of IPC only against the applicant to give undue advantage to him by which applicant can avail the benefit of bail.”
Court’s Analysis: Protecting the District Judiciary
The Division Bench expressed deep concern over these remarks, noting they concluded the trial judge acted to “give undue advantage” and speculated about “ulterior motives.” The Bench found this was “absolutely uncalled for and a violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s consistent direction to the High Court to desist from such observations in judicial orders.”
Citing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Sonu Agnihotri Vs. Chandra Shekhar and Ors., 2024 INSC 888, the Bench emphasized the distinction between criticizing erroneous orders and criticizing a judicial officer personally. It quoted the Supreme Court:
“There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer. The first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided.”
The Division Bench further observed that the Single Bench was not hearing a revision petition against the trial court’s order on framing charges but was only deciding bail applications. Therefore, commenting on the merits of the discharge order was “in excess of the exercise of bail jurisdiction.”
Highlighting its constitutional role under Articles 227 and 235, the Bench asserted its duty to act as a “sentinel protecting the District Judiciary from its (High Court’s) excesses.” It stated that the High Court must ensure that the “independence and fearlessness of the District Judiciary is not emasculated.”
Decision and Direction
The Division Bench acknowledged its own jurisdictional limitations, stating that “judicial discipline dictates the said orders under consideration are untouchable by this Court.” It concluded that only the Supreme Court has the discretion to judicially review the Single Bench’s orders.
Consequently, the court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, through the Registrar General, to “forthwith file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of ten days from the date of this order.”
The Bench clarified that its order was not adversarial and thus did not require notice or a reply from the High Court administration. The matter is scheduled for further orders on October 6, 2025.
