The Supreme Court has expunged adverse remarks and strictures recorded by the Rajasthan High Court against a District Judge cadre officer who presided over a POCSO Court, holding that castigating a Judicial Officer for inadvertent typographical errors that did not affect the outcome of a case was avoidable. The Court also set aside the High Court’s directions to send the officer for judgment-writing training and to place the order in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya allowed the officer’s appeal, finding that the remarks were made on the judicial side without giving her any chance to explain, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The officer’s name was masked in the title of the judgment.
Background: Two Trials, One FIR
The case arose from an FIR registered in Jhunjhunu district, Rajasthan, for offences under Section 376-D of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. One of the accused, a child in conflict with law, was transferred for trial as an adult by the Juvenile Justice Board. Since Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2015 bars joint proceedings of a child in conflict with law and an adult accused, separate trials were held for him and an adult co-accused.
On January 20, 2024, the appellant-Judicial Officer delivered separate judgments in both trials, convicting both accused and sentencing each to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Some overlapping extracts of evidence and numerical details from one trial were inadvertently incorporated into the judgment of the other.
While rejecting the convict’s application for suspension of sentence on May 1, 2025, a Single Judge of the High Court observed that the trial judge had used the “cut, copy and paste” method, that the judgment was in all probability written by the Stenographer or Clerk, and that it was signed without being read. The High Court remarked that a Judicial Officer who does not dictate the entire judgment is shirking responsibility and “such a Judicial Officer is not entitled to remain in service of Judiciary.”
Officer’s Explanation
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-Judicial Officer explained that the facts of both cases were intricately interwoven, as the witnesses and substantive evidence were almost the same. She stated that POCSO Courts have limited resources and the Act requires time-bound disposal of cases.
The sole Stenographer of the Special Court had gone on leave, so she dictated part of the judgment directly to the Lower Division Clerk on the computer and the rest to the Stenographer on his return. She described the errors, including incorrect serial numbers of prosecution witnesses, as bona fide typographical errors that did not alter the outcome or substance of the judgment.
Supreme Court: High Courts Must Act as Guardians
The Bench held that the High Court, while exercising its power of superintendence, “should have acted with greater magnanimity and in the true spirit of its role under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as guardian of the officers in the district judiciary.”
The Court observed: “To castigate a Judicial Officer for inadvertent typographical errors in a judgment, which did not, in any manner, affect the outcome of the case was avoidable.”
Cautioning against the impact of such remarks, it noted: “Such adverse remarks may have the deleterious effect of destroying the Judicial Officer’s career and may also have a chilling effect on the entire district judiciary.”
Relying on Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against Judicial Officers on the judicial side, and that concerns about an officer’s conduct may be brought to the Chief Justice on the administrative side, where the officer can explain. It also referred to Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal, under which observations on the quality of a judgment may be recorded in a remark slip placed before the administrative Judge or the Chief Justice.
Even if an error had occurred, the Court held, the High Court ought to have first given the officer an opportunity to explain. “The course chosen by the High Court was contrary to the fundamental principle of ‘audi alteram partem’.”
Opening the judgment with Alexander Pope’s line on forgiveness and the Sanskrit adage “Kshama Virasya Bhushanam”, the Bench observed that “fallibility is an inherent facet of human nature and forgiveness is the noblest virtue of a person in authority and for that matter, every human being.”
Outcome
The Supreme Court expunged the remarks in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the High Court’s order dated May 1, 2025, and set aside the directions in paragraphs 17 and 18 regarding training and placement in her ACR. The appeal was allowed, and the Registry was directed to send a copy to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for placing before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: In Re: XXX, A Judicial Officer in the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13501 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Date: November 2, 2026
