High Courts Should Refrain From Passing Strictures Against Judicial Officers While Deciding Matters On Judicial Side: Supreme Court

The appellant, a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, had approached the Apex Court assailing the strictures passed against him in an order passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

Referring to the judgment in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer (2001), the 3-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “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.”

Senior Advocate M. Balasubramaniam represented the Appellant while AAG Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In the year 2022, an FIR was registered against various accused persons, including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sethu @ Haddi & Sethu @ Angrej were arrested. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi and observed that the allegation of inflicting the lethal injury was against the accused Sethu @ Angrej from whom the case of the applicant therein (Sethu @ Haddi) was different. The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an application for bail, but the same was dismissed. Three separate bail applications were listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer.

The appellant-Judicial Officer, applying the principle of parity, granted bail to all accused persons. However, while considering the bail applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his criminal antecedents. The complainant moved for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Sethu @ Angrej and the same came to be allowed with the observation that the counsel for the accused misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf.

Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court. While rejecting the bail application of the accused, the High Court passed strictures against the appellant, observing that he, being a Judicial Officer, had passed the order granting bail to the accused in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused. It was directed that the copy of the impugned order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for perusal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the Single Judge to the detriment of the appellant Judicial Officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause.

“In addition, thereto, we find that the entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment in the case of Jugal (supra) which stands reversed by this Court in the case of Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan vide judgment dated 17th December, 2024”, it said.

Thus, holding that the strictures passed by the High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for, the Bench expunged the same.

The Apex Court concluded the matter by asking the High Courts to incorporate a provision which would make the accused obligated to disclose previously registered criminal cases.

Cause Title: Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajashtan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 871)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate M. Balasubramaniam, Advocate Javed Khan, AOR Vanya Gupta

Respondent: AAG Sansriti Pathak, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad, AOR Nidhi Jaswal

Click here to read/download Judgment