Document d0b21180-dfc3-4d92-b7a6-6f51c95bf8b1

2026 INSC 1188
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 13501 of 2025)

IN RE: XXX, A JUDICIAL OFFICER IN THE
DISTRICT JUDGE CADRE OF RAJASTHAN
JUDICIAL SERVICES

J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
1
3. The appellant before us is a Judicial Officer
from the District Judge Cadre of the Rajasthan
Judicial Services. For the sake of non-disclosure of
the identity, the name of the appellant-Judicial
Officer has been masked in the title of the judgment.
4. The famous English poet Alexander Pope, in his
celebrated work ‘An Essay on Criticism’, penned the
timeless lines:
“To err is human, to forgive,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.11.02
17:43:10 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter referred to as “appellant-Judicial Officer”.
1

This global truth reverberates in Indian
divine.”
ethos and ancient jurisprudence. The foundational
Jain virtue of “ ” ( Uttama Kshama ), outlined
उत्तम क्षमा
in the “ ” ( Tattvartha Sutra ), establishes
तत्वार्थ सूत्र
forgiveness as a supreme spiritual tenet, a concept
beautifully mirrored in the renowned Sanskrit adage

“ क्षमा वीरस्य भूषणम् ” ( Kshama Virasya Bhushanam ),
which proclaims that forgiveness is the ornament of
the brave. This philosophy is a solemn reminder 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.
The present case is a fit illustration calling for the

exercise of this very virtue of forgiveness.
5. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Courts are vested with supervisory
jurisdiction over the Courts within their respective
jurisdictions. The duty cast upon the High Courts
under this constitutional provision is of the utmost
importance and requires exercise of powers of
superintendence in a manner that guides,

strengthens and nurtures the district judiciary.
2

6. The present case portrays a situation where the
said supervisory power appears to have been
exercised in a manner that could have been avoided
by exercising the virtue of forgiveness and
magnanimity.
7. FIR No. 56/2019 was lodged at Police Station
Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, against the
following accused persons: (i) Abdul Aziz (father of the
2
victim), (ii) S - the Child in Conflict with Law and (iii)
Dev Kumar, for offences punishable under Section
3
376-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
4
Offences Act, 2012.
th
8. S-CNCL was arrested on 6 October, 2021, and
produced before the Juvenile Justice Board
concerned. A preliminary assessment was conducted
under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
5
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in which S, the
CNCL was recorded as being 16 years 9 months and
28 days as on the date of the incident. The Board was
of the opinion that the S-CNCL was fit to be tried as

2
Hereinafter referred to as “S-CNCL”.
3
For short “IPC”.
4
For short “POCSO”.
5
For short “JJ Act, 2015”.
3

an adult, and, accordingly, exercising powers under
Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015, the Board
transferred the case of S-CNCL for trial to the Court
of the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jhunjhunu,
where the same was registered as Sessions Case No.
12/2022.
9. Parallel to the proceedings against S-CNCL, a
separate trial arising out of the same FIR was
conducted in Sessions Case No. 65/2019 against the
co-accused Abdul Aziz. Owing to the statutory
embargo contained in Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2015,
which expressly bars joint proceedings of a child in
conflict with law and the adult accused, there existed
a statutory mandate to conduct separate trials and
deliver distinct judgments in both matters.
10. After appreciating the evidence in both trials,
the appellant-Judicial Officer pronounced separate
th
judgments on 20 January, 2024, convicting both
accused persons of the charges found proved against
them and sentencing each to 20 years’ rigorous
imprisonment.
11. It seems that, during the course of rendering
judgments in the two cases referred to supra , some
overlapping extracts of evidence/numerical details of
4

the record of evidence from one trial were
inadvertently incorporated into the judgment of the
other.
12. Aggrieved by his conviction, S-CNCL preferred
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 426/2024 before the High
Court, along with S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application No. 1456/2024.
13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
rejected the suspension of sentence application after
st
discussing merits of the case vide order dated 1
May, 2025. However, in passing the said order, the
learned Single Judge was of the view that negligence
had been committed by the Presiding Officer of the
trial Court (the appellant herein) in rendering the
judgment in the case of S-CNCL. The High Court was
of the opinion that the appellant-Judicial Officer had
used the methodology of ‘cut, copy and paste’ and in
all probability, the judgment had been scripted by the
concerned Stenographer/Clerk and was signed
without being read and corrected by the Presiding
Officer as she failed to strike out the irrelevant
paragraphs which related to the trial of the adult
accused. Observing so, the learned Single Judge,
proceeded to record adverse remarks against the
5

appellant-Judicial Officer in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and
11 of the impugned order and issued the directions
contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof. The
relevant paragraphs read as below:-
8. A perusal of record of the case and also the
“
judgment dated 20.01.2024 in Sessions Case
No.65/2019 clearly indicate that learned trial Court
has passed two judgments on very same day,one
relating to Abdul Aziz and other to present one. Both
the cases were arising out of same FIR No.56/2019
registered at Police Station Malsisar, District
Jhunjhunu but the process of trial was different. In
Sessions Case No.65/2019, 17 witness were
examined and 30 documents were exhibited and DW-
1 was examined as defence witness.

9. A perusal of judgment in the instant case clearly
indicate that the trial Judge has shirked her
responsibility and neglected her duty by not dictating
the judgment in toto, rather, learned Judge has used
methodology of cut, copy and paste, which shows that
the judgment is in fact written by concerned
Stenographer/Clerk. After preparing the judgment,
the learned Presiding Officer has not taken care to
read and correct the judgment so that irrelevant
paragraphs may be striked out. This again shows that
learned trial Judge instead of devoting time for
judgment writing, was busy in other irrelevant work
and leaving the judgment writing upon Stenographer
or P.A. It is duty of a Judge to consider the factual
aspect of the case and after applying the proper law,
write a judgment.

10. In U.S. Courts, role of a Judge has been defined
as a person who presides over the trial from an
elevated platform called dias. The Judge has five basic
tasks and these are:-

6

(i) Preside over the proceedings and see that
order is maintained;
(ii) To determine whether any of the evidence
that the parties want to use is illegal or
improper;
(iii)To ensure applicability of law on facts of the
case and maintain standard to decide the
case;
(iv)To determine the real facts of the case and
decide accordingly;
(v)To sentence convicted criminals
appropriately.

11.Since this is a bail (SOS) order, therefore, we are
not burdening ourselves on this issue but certainly
this is an alarming situation that a Senior District
Judge posted in POCSO Court is not devoting time to
write a judgment rather depending upon a
Stenographer. It is the duty of a Judge to dictate
judgment from top to bottom which means entire
judgment from para No.1 to last para must be in steno
diary. If it is not available, it means the Judge is
shirking his or her responsibility and such a Judicial
Officer is not entitled to remain in service of Judiciary.
[...]
17. A copy of this order be sent to the Hon’ble Judge,
In-charge of the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to
impart training to learned Presiding Officer, about
judgment writing.

18. The Registrar General is directed to make a copy
of this order as a part of her ACR for year 2024 but

after obtaining her comments.
”

14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid adverse
observations/strictures, the appellant-Judicial
Officer is before us by way of the instant appeal with
special leave seeking expungement of the adverse
7

remarks ( supra ) recorded against her in the
impugned order.
15. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel representing the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent and have gone through the material
available on record.
16. Ex facie , we feel that the adverse observations
and the strictures recorded by the High Court against
the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for and
avoidable. These disparaging remarks and the
strictures were recorded on the judicial side, without
affording an opportunity to the appellant-Judicial
Officer to show cause or to place her explanation on
record before such observations and strictures were
made, and hence, suffer from the vice of non-
adherence to the principles of natural justice.
17. In the instant appeal, the appellant-Judicial
Officer has explained the circumstances under which
the overlapping facts came to be recorded in the
judgment of S-CNCL. It has been stated that the facts
of both the cases were intricately intermingled and
interwoven with each other, as the witnesses in both
8

the cases and the substantive evidence were almost
the same.
18. The appellant-Judicial Officer has also
explained that the Special Courts under the POCSO
Act have limited resources available and that the
provisions of the POCSO Act require a time-bound,
expeditious disposal of cases registered under the
said Act.
19. The sole Stenographer provided for the Special
Court had proceeded on leave and, hence, the
appellant-Judicial Officer was constrained to dictate
part of the judgment directly to the Lower Division
Clerk (LDC) on the computer, while the major
remaining portion was dictated to the Stenographer,
upon his return. The errors in the judgment,
including the incorrect serial numbers of the
prosecution witnesses, are explained by the
appellant-Judicial Officer as bona fide typographical
errors which, according to her, neither altered nor
affected the outcome or substance of the judgment.
20. Having appreciated the submissions advanced
at the Bar and after going through the impugned
order, specifically the adverse
observations/strictures recorded by the learned
9

Single Judge as above, we are of the opinion that it
was a fit case wherein the High Court, while
exercising the 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.
21. 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.
22. In this regard, reference may be made to the
judgment of this Court in Kaushal Singh v. State
6
of Rajasthan , wherein after considering the settled
principles governing the recording of strictures
against Judicial Officers, this Court reiterated that
High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing
strictures against Judicial Officers while deciding
matters on the judicial side. Relying upon the
principles laid down in In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial
7
Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar

6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473.
7
(2001) 3 SCC 54.
10

8
& Ors. , this Court emphasised the distinction
between criticism of an erroneous judicial order and
adverse comments on the personal conduct or calibre
of the Judicial Officer. It was further observed that
concerns regarding the conduct of a Judicial Officer
may appropriately be brought to the notice of the
Chief Justice on the administrative side, where the
officer would have an opportunity to explain the
circumstances in question. Applying these principles,
this Court held that the strictures recorded against
the Judicial Officer therein, without affording an
opportunity to explain the position or showing cause,
were uncalled for and accordingly expunged the
same.
23. 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. In this background, we are unable to
subscribe to the view taken by the High Court that
the appellant-Judicial Officer was acting in
dereliction of her duties while rendering the judgment
th
dated 20 January, 2024.

8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382.
11

24. In any event, even if the High Court was of the
view that any error had occurred on part of the
appellant-Judicial Officer in rendering the judgment,
it ought not to have recorded adverse observations
against her without first affording her an opportunity
to explain the circumstances in which the error
occurred. The course chosen by the High Court was
contrary to the fundamental principle of ‘audi
alteram partem’.
25. Furthermore, we may reiterate that this Court
in the case of Shuvendu Saha v. State of West
9
Bengal and Anr. , has observed that, where
situation warrants such a course of action, the
appropriate procedure would be to record
observations concerning the merits or quality of the
judgment or the proceedings of the Presiding Officer
in a remark slip which, in turn, would be placed
before the administrative Judge or the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the High Court, as the case may be, for
necessary follow-up action on the administrative
side. Condemnation of the conduct of the Judicial
Officer by the High Cout on the judicial side would

9
2026 INSC 367.
12

undeniably lead to adverse consequences on the
career of the Judicial Officer. Such action, taken
without following the salutary principles of natural

justice is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
26. As a consequence, the strictures and adverse
remarks recorded against the appellant-Judicial
Officer in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 ( supra ) of the
st
impugned order dated 1 May, 2025, as well as the
directions in paragraphs 17 and 18 ( supra ) regarding
training and placement in her ACR, cannot be

sustained and are hereby expunged and set aside.
27. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
28. A copy of this order shall be transmitted by the
Registry of this Court to the Registrar General, High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, for being placed
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………….….……………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)

………………….....…………………….J.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 02, 2026.
13