Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 871
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2254 of 2025)
KAUSHAL SINGH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASHTAN ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the
1
District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the
State of Rajasthan, has approached this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.18
16:39:23 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Judicial Officer”.
1
through this appeal by special leave in order to
assail the strictures passed against him in order
rd 2
dated 3 May, 2024 passed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
3
Bench at Jaipur while deciding the S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024.
4. The chronological list of events, relevant and
essential for disposal of the appeal are noted
hereinbelow.
4
5. First Information Report No. 224 of 2022 was
registered at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer on
rd
23 October, 2022 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 Indian
5
Penal Code, 1860 .
st
6. Sethu @ Haddi was arrested on 21 November,
th
2022 whereas Sethu @ Angrej was arrested on 25
November, 2022 in connection with the aforesaid
FIR. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi
th
vide order dated 16 December, 2022.
2
Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.
3
Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.
4
For short ‘FIR’.
5
For short, “IPC”.
2
7. It may be mentioned here that while passing
th
the order dated 16 December, 2022, the High
Court 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.
8. At this stage, we are persuaded to note that
the said FIR does not bear any reference to the
offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter being
invoked in the case. As per the formal FIR, the
offences under the various other sections of IPC
mentioned above were applied against the accused
in the said case. However, subsequent to the
procurement of the medical reports, the
Investigation Officer added offences punishable
under Sections 325 and 307 IPC to the case. The
report under Section 173(2) CrPC came to be filed
against the accused persons nominated in FIR No.
224 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147,
341, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149
th
of IPC vide chargesheet dated 20 December, 2022.
9. The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an
application for bail which was dismissed by the
th
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ajmer on 17
3
December, 2022. Thereafter, said accused applied
for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
6
Procedure, 1973 and fortuitously, the same came
to be listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer who
was holding the charge of the Sessions Court in the
capacity of a Link Officer. As many as three
separate bail applications arising out of FIR No. 224
of 2022, to be specific, Bail Application Case No.
1244 of 2022 ( Sachin Sen and Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan ); Bail Application Case No. 1246 of 2022
( Tarachand alias Taru v. State of Rajasthan ) and Bail
Application Case No. 1247 of 2022 ( Sethu alias
Angrez v. State of Rajasthan ) were listed before the
th
appellant-Judicial Officer on 19 December, 2022.
10. It appears that while arguing the bail
applications, the contention which was raised before
the Court was that the case of the bail applicants
was not different from that of Sethu @ Haddi, who
had been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide
th
order dated 16 December, 2022.
11. The appellant-Judicial Officer seems to be
carrying some misconception that the life-
threatening injuries were attributed to the said
6
For short, “CrPC”.
4
Sethu @ Haddi and thus, the case of the applicants
before him was not different from the said accused
(Sethu @ Haddi). Applying the principle of parity
and based on the order passed by the High Court in
Khet Singh and Another v. State of
the case of
7
Rajasthan , the appellant-Judicial Officer granted
bail to all the aforesaid accused persons. It
transpires that while considering the bail
applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the
appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his
criminal antecedents.
12. The complainant in FIR No. 224 of 2022 moved
for cancellation of bail granted to the accused,
Sethu @ Angrej by filing an application under
Section 439(2) of CrPC before the learned Sessions
Judge, which came to be allowed vide order dated
th
6 July, 2023. The learned Sessions Judge observed
that the learned counsel for the accused Sethu @
Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his
behalf.
13. Being aggrieved, the accused Sethu @ Angrej
approached the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024
7
2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096.
5
which came to be decided by the learned Single
rd
Judge of the High Court vide order dated 3 May,
2024. While rejecting the bail application of the
accused Sethu @ Angrej, the High Court passed
strictures against the appellant herein observing
that, he being a Judicial Officer, had passed the
th
order granting bail to Sethu @ Angrej dated 19
December, 2022 in a grossly inappropriate and
cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record
of the said accused.
14. Additionally, an observation was made by the
learned Single Judge that the accused Sethu @
Angrej was the principal accused in the case, as he
caused the lethal injury to the injured Pappu. The
High Court observed that appellant-Judicial Officer,
while deciding the bail application, omitted to
th
consider the order dated 16 December, 2022 and
granted bail to the said accused ignoring the
principles laid down by the High Court in the case of
8
Jugal v. State of Rajasthan wherein it was
,
mandated that the Presiding Officer granting bail to
the accused is under an obligation to incorporate
8
2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691.
6
the criminal record of the applicant in a tabular
form and that the judgment of the High Court in the
case of Khet Singh ( supra ) was improperly applied
while granting bail to the said accused.
15. The High Court concluded in the impugned
rd
order dated 3 May, 2024 that this act of the
appellant-Judicial Officer tantamounted to
indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and
disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the
High Court. Observing so, it was directed that the
rd
copy of the impugned order dated 3 May, 2024 be
placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan
High Court for perusal.
16. Being aggrieved by the observations made and
strictures passed against him, the appellant-
Judicial Officer is before this Court by way of this
appeal with special leave.
17. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-Judicial Officer and have gone through
the impugned order.
7
18. 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. Reference in this regard
9
may be made to in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer . In
paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, this Court dealt with the
validity and legality of strictures passed by the High
Court against a Judicial Officer serving as a member
of the district judiciary which are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“15. In the case at hand we are concerned with
the observations made by the High Court against
a judicial officer who is a serving member of
subordinate judiciary. Under the constitutional
scheme control over the district courts and courts
subordinate thereto has been vested in the High
Courts. The control so vested is administrative,
judicial and disciplinary. The role of High Court
is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of
judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of
power is not displayed solely in cracking a
whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power
should be so wielded as to have propensity to
prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition
if committed once innocently or unwittingly.
“Pardon the error but not its repetition”. The
power to control is not to be exercised solely
by wielding a teacher's cane; the members of
subordinate judiciary look up to the High
Court for the power to control to be exercised
9
(2001) 3 SCC 54.
8
with parent-like care and affection. The
exercise of statutory jurisdiction, appellate or
revisional and the exercise of constitutional power
to control and supervise the functioning of the
district courts and courts subordinate thereto
empowers the High Court to formulate an opinion
and place it on record not only on the judicial
working but also on the conduct of the judicial
officers. The existence of power in higher
echelons of judiciary to make observations
even extending to criticism incorporated in
judicial orders cannot be denied, however, the
High Courts have to remember that criticisms
and observations touching a subordinate
incorporated judicial in officer judicial
pronouncements have their own mischievous
infirmities. Firstly, 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. Secondly, the harm
caused by such criticism or observation may
be incapable of being undone. Such criticism
of the judicial officer contained in a judgment,
reportable or not, is a pronouncement in open
and therefore becomes public. The same Judge
who found himself persuaded, sitting on
judicial side, to make observations guided by
the facts of a single case against a Subordinate
Judge may, sitting on administrative side and
apprised of overall meritorious performance of
the Subordinate Judge, may irretrievably
regret his having made those observations on
judicial side, the harming effect whereof even
he himself cannot remove on administrative
side. Thirdly, human nature being what it is,
such criticism of a judicial officer contained in
the judgment of a higher court gives the
litigating party a sense of victory not only
9
over his opponent but also over the Judge who
had decided the case against him. This is
subversive of judicial authority of the deciding
Judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the
observations by a judicial officer by filing an
appeal or petition of his own reduces him to
the status of a litigant arrayed as a party
before the High Court or Supreme Court — a
situation not very happy from the point of
view of the functioning of the judicial system.
May be for the purpose of pleading his cause
he has to take the assistance of a legal
practitioner and such legal practitioner may
be one practising before him. Look at the
embarrassment involved. And last but not the
least, the possibility of a single or casual
aberration of an otherwise honest, upright and
righteous Judge being caught unawares in the
net of adverse observations cannot be ruled
out. Such an incident would have a seriously
demoralising effect not only on him but also
on his colleagues. If all this is avoidable, why
should it not be avoided?
16. We must not be understood as meaning that
any conduct of a subordinate judicial officer
unbecoming of him and demanding a rebuff
should be simply overlooked. But there is an
alternate safer and advisable course available to
choose. 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 as found by
him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement
criticism of, or observations on the “conduct” of
the subordinate judicial officer who had decided
the case under scrutiny. Simultaneously, but
separately, in office proceedings may be drawn
up inviting attention of Hon'ble Chief Justice
to the facts describing the conduct of the
Subordinate Judge concerned by sending a
10
confidential letter or note to the Chief
Justice. It will thereafter be open to the Chief
Justice to deal with the subordinate judicial
officer either at his own level or through the
Inspecting Judge or by placing the matter
before the full court for its consideration. The
action so taken would all be on the
administrative side. The Subordinate Judge
concerned would have an opportunity of
clarifying his position or putting forth the
circumstances under which he acted. He
would not be condemned unheard and if the
decision be adverse to him, it being on
administrative side, he would have some
remedy available to him under the law. He
would not be rendered remediless.
17. The remarks made in a judicial order of the
High Court against a member of subordinate
judiciary even if expunged would not
completely restitute and restore the harmed
Judge from the loss of dignity and honour
suffered by him. In Judges by David Pannick
(Oxford University Press Publication, 1987) a
wholesome practise finds a mention suggesting
an appropriate course to be followed in such
situations:
“ Lord Hailsham explained that in a
number of cases, although I seldom told
the complainant that I had done so,
I showed the complaint to the Judge
concerned. I thought it good for him both
to see what was being said about him
from the other side of the court, and how
perhaps a lapse of manners or a
momentary impatience could undermine
confidence in his decision .”
(emphasis supplied)
11
19. The said judgment has been relied on by a 3-
Judge bench of this Court in Sonu Agnihotri v.
10
Chandra Shekhar & Ors where this Court again
implored that the Courts higher in the judicial
hierarchy should refrain from commenting on the
conduct and calib of judicial officers. Reference may
be made to Paragraph 15 of Sonu Agnihotri
(supra), reproduced hereinbelow:
“15. The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy
are invested with appellate or revisional
jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the
courts that are judicially subordinate to it. The
High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the
CrPC to correct the errors committed by the
courts which are judicially subordinate to it. We
must hasten to add that no court can be called
a “subordinate court”. Here, we refer to
“subordinate” courts only in the context of
appellate, revisional or supervisory
jurisdiction. The superior courts exercising
such powers can set aside erroneous orders
and expunge uncalled and unwarranted
observations. While doing so, the superior
courts can legitimately criticise the orders
passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate
Courts by giving reasons. There can be
criticism of the errors committed, in some
cases, by using strong language. However,
such observations must always be in the
context of errors in the impugned orders.
While doing so, the courts have to show
restraint, and adverse comments on the
10
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382
12
personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial
Officer should be avoided. 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 reasons are already
explained by this Court in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial
Officer . There are five reasons given in paragraph
15 of the decision why judicial officers should not
be condemned unheard. As observed in the
decision, the High Court Judges, after noticing
improper conduct on the part of the Judicial
Officer, can always invite the attention of the
Chief Justice on the administrative side to
such conduct. Whenever action is proposed
against a judicial officer on the administrative
side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and
explain his position. But if such personal
adverse observations are made in a judgment,
the Judicial Officer’s career gets adversely
affected.
16. The Judges are human beings. All human
beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err
is human. Almost all courts in our country are
overburdened. In the year 2002, in the case of
“All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., this Court passed an
order directing that within five years, an
endeavour should be made to increase the
judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary
to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024,
we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per
million. Meanwhile, the population and
litigation have substantially increased. The
Judges have to work under stress. As stated
earlier, every Judge, irrespective of his post and
status, is likely to commit errors. In a given
case, after writing several sound judgments, a
judge may commit an error in one judgment
due to the pressure of work or otherwise. As
stated earlier, the higher court can always
13
correct the error. However, while doing so, if
strictures are passed personally against a
Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the
Judicial Officer, apart from the
embarrassment involved. We must remember
that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we
are prone to making mistakes. Therefore,
personal criticism of Judges or recording findings
on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be
avoided.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Furthermore, in the present case, the fact
remains that the strictures and/or the scathing
observations were made by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court 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.
11 th
State of Rajasthan vide judgment dated 17
December, 2024.
21. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the strictures passed by the High Court against
the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for and
11
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763.
14
hence, the same are expunged. The impugned order
is modified to that extent.
22. Before parting, we would like to state that,
accounting for the criminal antecedents of the
accused while considering the bail applications has
been the subject matter of concern for Courts across
the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of
Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as
below:
“ 5. Bail applications. - In every application for
bail presented to the High Court the petitioner
shall state whether similar application has or has
not been made to the Supreme Court, and if
made shall state the result thereof. The
petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether
he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case
or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof.
An application which does not contain this
information shall be placed before the bench with
the necessary information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the country
should consider incorporating a similar provision in
the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal
Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the
accused to make disclosures regarding his/her
15
involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously
registered.
24. It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this
order shall be communicated to the Registrar
Generals of all the High Courts so that
incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective
Rules can be considered, if such provision does not
exist from earlier.
25. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
….……………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 18, 2025.
16
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2254 of 2025)
KAUSHAL SINGH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASHTAN ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the
1
District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the
State of Rajasthan, has approached this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.18
16:39:23 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Judicial Officer”.
1
through this appeal by special leave in order to
assail the strictures passed against him in order
rd 2
dated 3 May, 2024 passed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
3
Bench at Jaipur while deciding the S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024.
4. The chronological list of events, relevant and
essential for disposal of the appeal are noted
hereinbelow.
4
5. First Information Report No. 224 of 2022 was
registered at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer on
rd
23 October, 2022 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 Indian
5
Penal Code, 1860 .
st
6. Sethu @ Haddi was arrested on 21 November,
th
2022 whereas Sethu @ Angrej was arrested on 25
November, 2022 in connection with the aforesaid
FIR. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi
th
vide order dated 16 December, 2022.
2
Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.
3
Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.
4
For short ‘FIR’.
5
For short, “IPC”.
2
7. It may be mentioned here that while passing
th
the order dated 16 December, 2022, the High
Court 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.
8. At this stage, we are persuaded to note that
the said FIR does not bear any reference to the
offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter being
invoked in the case. As per the formal FIR, the
offences under the various other sections of IPC
mentioned above were applied against the accused
in the said case. However, subsequent to the
procurement of the medical reports, the
Investigation Officer added offences punishable
under Sections 325 and 307 IPC to the case. The
report under Section 173(2) CrPC came to be filed
against the accused persons nominated in FIR No.
224 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147,
341, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149
th
of IPC vide chargesheet dated 20 December, 2022.
9. The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an
application for bail which was dismissed by the
th
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ajmer on 17
3
December, 2022. Thereafter, said accused applied
for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
6
Procedure, 1973 and fortuitously, the same came
to be listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer who
was holding the charge of the Sessions Court in the
capacity of a Link Officer. As many as three
separate bail applications arising out of FIR No. 224
of 2022, to be specific, Bail Application Case No.
1244 of 2022 ( Sachin Sen and Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan ); Bail Application Case No. 1246 of 2022
( Tarachand alias Taru v. State of Rajasthan ) and Bail
Application Case No. 1247 of 2022 ( Sethu alias
Angrez v. State of Rajasthan ) were listed before the
th
appellant-Judicial Officer on 19 December, 2022.
10. It appears that while arguing the bail
applications, the contention which was raised before
the Court was that the case of the bail applicants
was not different from that of Sethu @ Haddi, who
had been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide
th
order dated 16 December, 2022.
11. The appellant-Judicial Officer seems to be
carrying some misconception that the life-
threatening injuries were attributed to the said
6
For short, “CrPC”.
4
Sethu @ Haddi and thus, the case of the applicants
before him was not different from the said accused
(Sethu @ Haddi). Applying the principle of parity
and based on the order passed by the High Court in
Khet Singh and Another v. State of
the case of
7
Rajasthan , the appellant-Judicial Officer granted
bail to all the aforesaid accused persons. It
transpires that while considering the bail
applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the
appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his
criminal antecedents.
12. The complainant in FIR No. 224 of 2022 moved
for cancellation of bail granted to the accused,
Sethu @ Angrej by filing an application under
Section 439(2) of CrPC before the learned Sessions
Judge, which came to be allowed vide order dated
th
6 July, 2023. The learned Sessions Judge observed
that the learned counsel for the accused Sethu @
Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his
behalf.
13. Being aggrieved, the accused Sethu @ Angrej
approached the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024
7
2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096.
5
which came to be decided by the learned Single
rd
Judge of the High Court vide order dated 3 May,
2024. While rejecting the bail application of the
accused Sethu @ Angrej, the High Court passed
strictures against the appellant herein observing
that, he being a Judicial Officer, had passed the
th
order granting bail to Sethu @ Angrej dated 19
December, 2022 in a grossly inappropriate and
cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record
of the said accused.
14. Additionally, an observation was made by the
learned Single Judge that the accused Sethu @
Angrej was the principal accused in the case, as he
caused the lethal injury to the injured Pappu. The
High Court observed that appellant-Judicial Officer,
while deciding the bail application, omitted to
th
consider the order dated 16 December, 2022 and
granted bail to the said accused ignoring the
principles laid down by the High Court in the case of
8
Jugal v. State of Rajasthan wherein it was
,
mandated that the Presiding Officer granting bail to
the accused is under an obligation to incorporate
8
2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691.
6
the criminal record of the applicant in a tabular
form and that the judgment of the High Court in the
case of Khet Singh ( supra ) was improperly applied
while granting bail to the said accused.
15. The High Court concluded in the impugned
rd
order dated 3 May, 2024 that this act of the
appellant-Judicial Officer tantamounted to
indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and
disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the
High Court. Observing so, it was directed that the
rd
copy of the impugned order dated 3 May, 2024 be
placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan
High Court for perusal.
16. Being aggrieved by the observations made and
strictures passed against him, the appellant-
Judicial Officer is before this Court by way of this
appeal with special leave.
17. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-Judicial Officer and have gone through
the impugned order.
7
18. 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. Reference in this regard
9
may be made to in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer . In
paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, this Court dealt with the
validity and legality of strictures passed by the High
Court against a Judicial Officer serving as a member
of the district judiciary which are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“15. In the case at hand we are concerned with
the observations made by the High Court against
a judicial officer who is a serving member of
subordinate judiciary. Under the constitutional
scheme control over the district courts and courts
subordinate thereto has been vested in the High
Courts. The control so vested is administrative,
judicial and disciplinary. The role of High Court
is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of
judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of
power is not displayed solely in cracking a
whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power
should be so wielded as to have propensity to
prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition
if committed once innocently or unwittingly.
“Pardon the error but not its repetition”. The
power to control is not to be exercised solely
by wielding a teacher's cane; the members of
subordinate judiciary look up to the High
Court for the power to control to be exercised
9
(2001) 3 SCC 54.
8
with parent-like care and affection. The
exercise of statutory jurisdiction, appellate or
revisional and the exercise of constitutional power
to control and supervise the functioning of the
district courts and courts subordinate thereto
empowers the High Court to formulate an opinion
and place it on record not only on the judicial
working but also on the conduct of the judicial
officers. The existence of power in higher
echelons of judiciary to make observations
even extending to criticism incorporated in
judicial orders cannot be denied, however, the
High Courts have to remember that criticisms
and observations touching a subordinate
incorporated judicial in officer judicial
pronouncements have their own mischievous
infirmities. Firstly, 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. Secondly, the harm
caused by such criticism or observation may
be incapable of being undone. Such criticism
of the judicial officer contained in a judgment,
reportable or not, is a pronouncement in open
and therefore becomes public. The same Judge
who found himself persuaded, sitting on
judicial side, to make observations guided by
the facts of a single case against a Subordinate
Judge may, sitting on administrative side and
apprised of overall meritorious performance of
the Subordinate Judge, may irretrievably
regret his having made those observations on
judicial side, the harming effect whereof even
he himself cannot remove on administrative
side. Thirdly, human nature being what it is,
such criticism of a judicial officer contained in
the judgment of a higher court gives the
litigating party a sense of victory not only
9
over his opponent but also over the Judge who
had decided the case against him. This is
subversive of judicial authority of the deciding
Judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the
observations by a judicial officer by filing an
appeal or petition of his own reduces him to
the status of a litigant arrayed as a party
before the High Court or Supreme Court — a
situation not very happy from the point of
view of the functioning of the judicial system.
May be for the purpose of pleading his cause
he has to take the assistance of a legal
practitioner and such legal practitioner may
be one practising before him. Look at the
embarrassment involved. And last but not the
least, the possibility of a single or casual
aberration of an otherwise honest, upright and
righteous Judge being caught unawares in the
net of adverse observations cannot be ruled
out. Such an incident would have a seriously
demoralising effect not only on him but also
on his colleagues. If all this is avoidable, why
should it not be avoided?
16. We must not be understood as meaning that
any conduct of a subordinate judicial officer
unbecoming of him and demanding a rebuff
should be simply overlooked. But there is an
alternate safer and advisable course available to
choose. 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 as found by
him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement
criticism of, or observations on the “conduct” of
the subordinate judicial officer who had decided
the case under scrutiny. Simultaneously, but
separately, in office proceedings may be drawn
up inviting attention of Hon'ble Chief Justice
to the facts describing the conduct of the
Subordinate Judge concerned by sending a
10
confidential letter or note to the Chief
Justice. It will thereafter be open to the Chief
Justice to deal with the subordinate judicial
officer either at his own level or through the
Inspecting Judge or by placing the matter
before the full court for its consideration. The
action so taken would all be on the
administrative side. The Subordinate Judge
concerned would have an opportunity of
clarifying his position or putting forth the
circumstances under which he acted. He
would not be condemned unheard and if the
decision be adverse to him, it being on
administrative side, he would have some
remedy available to him under the law. He
would not be rendered remediless.
17. The remarks made in a judicial order of the
High Court against a member of subordinate
judiciary even if expunged would not
completely restitute and restore the harmed
Judge from the loss of dignity and honour
suffered by him. In Judges by David Pannick
(Oxford University Press Publication, 1987) a
wholesome practise finds a mention suggesting
an appropriate course to be followed in such
situations:
“ Lord Hailsham explained that in a
number of cases, although I seldom told
the complainant that I had done so,
I showed the complaint to the Judge
concerned. I thought it good for him both
to see what was being said about him
from the other side of the court, and how
perhaps a lapse of manners or a
momentary impatience could undermine
confidence in his decision .”
(emphasis supplied)
11
19. The said judgment has been relied on by a 3-
Judge bench of this Court in Sonu Agnihotri v.
10
Chandra Shekhar & Ors where this Court again
implored that the Courts higher in the judicial
hierarchy should refrain from commenting on the
conduct and calib of judicial officers. Reference may
be made to Paragraph 15 of Sonu Agnihotri
(supra), reproduced hereinbelow:
“15. The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy
are invested with appellate or revisional
jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the
courts that are judicially subordinate to it. The
High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the
CrPC to correct the errors committed by the
courts which are judicially subordinate to it. We
must hasten to add that no court can be called
a “subordinate court”. Here, we refer to
“subordinate” courts only in the context of
appellate, revisional or supervisory
jurisdiction. The superior courts exercising
such powers can set aside erroneous orders
and expunge uncalled and unwarranted
observations. While doing so, the superior
courts can legitimately criticise the orders
passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate
Courts by giving reasons. There can be
criticism of the errors committed, in some
cases, by using strong language. However,
such observations must always be in the
context of errors in the impugned orders.
While doing so, the courts have to show
restraint, and adverse comments on the
10
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382
12
personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial
Officer should be avoided. 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 reasons are already
explained by this Court in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial
Officer . There are five reasons given in paragraph
15 of the decision why judicial officers should not
be condemned unheard. As observed in the
decision, the High Court Judges, after noticing
improper conduct on the part of the Judicial
Officer, can always invite the attention of the
Chief Justice on the administrative side to
such conduct. Whenever action is proposed
against a judicial officer on the administrative
side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and
explain his position. But if such personal
adverse observations are made in a judgment,
the Judicial Officer’s career gets adversely
affected.
16. The Judges are human beings. All human
beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err
is human. Almost all courts in our country are
overburdened. In the year 2002, in the case of
“All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., this Court passed an
order directing that within five years, an
endeavour should be made to increase the
judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary
to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024,
we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per
million. Meanwhile, the population and
litigation have substantially increased. The
Judges have to work under stress. As stated
earlier, every Judge, irrespective of his post and
status, is likely to commit errors. In a given
case, after writing several sound judgments, a
judge may commit an error in one judgment
due to the pressure of work or otherwise. As
stated earlier, the higher court can always
13
correct the error. However, while doing so, if
strictures are passed personally against a
Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the
Judicial Officer, apart from the
embarrassment involved. We must remember
that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we
are prone to making mistakes. Therefore,
personal criticism of Judges or recording findings
on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be
avoided.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Furthermore, in the present case, the fact
remains that the strictures and/or the scathing
observations were made by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court 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.
11 th
State of Rajasthan vide judgment dated 17
December, 2024.
21. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the strictures passed by the High Court against
the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for and
11
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763.
14
hence, the same are expunged. The impugned order
is modified to that extent.
22. Before parting, we would like to state that,
accounting for the criminal antecedents of the
accused while considering the bail applications has
been the subject matter of concern for Courts across
the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of
Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as
below:
“ 5. Bail applications. - In every application for
bail presented to the High Court the petitioner
shall state whether similar application has or has
not been made to the Supreme Court, and if
made shall state the result thereof. The
petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether
he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case
or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof.
An application which does not contain this
information shall be placed before the bench with
the necessary information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the country
should consider incorporating a similar provision in
the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal
Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the
accused to make disclosures regarding his/her
15
involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously
registered.
24. It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this
order shall be communicated to the Registrar
Generals of all the High Courts so that
incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective
Rules can be considered, if such provision does not
exist from earlier.
25. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
….……………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 18, 2025.
16