Supreme Court Expunges High Court’s ‘Cut, Copy And Paste’ Strictures Against Judge Over POCSO Judgment Without Hearing Her

The appellant, a District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Services, conducted separate trials arising from the same FIR against an adult accused and a child in conflict with law, as required by Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

In judgments delivered on the same day, overlapping extracts of evidence and numerical details were inadvertently included in the judgment concerning the child.

On the child’s suspension-of-sentence application, the High Court criticised the appellant for allegedly using a “cut, copy and paste” method, recorded adverse remarks, and directed that the order be placed in her ACR and that she receive training in judgment writing.

The appellant appealed seeking expungement of those remarks and directions.

Article 227 of the Constitution vests High Courts with supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, which should be exercised to guide and strengthen the district judiciary.

The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, require that a Judicial Officer be given an opportunity to explain before adverse remarks concerning their conduct are recorded.

Relying on Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar, the Court reiterated that criticism of a judicial order must be distinguished from adverse comments on a Judicial Officer’s personal conduct or calibre, and that concerns about an officer’s conduct may be addressed on the administrative side after the officer has an opportunity to respond.

Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal supports the use of a remark slip for concerns about a judgment or proceedings, for consideration by the administrative Judge or Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s explanation that the trials involved substantially overlapping witnesses and evidence, that the Special Court had limited resources, and that the sole stenographer’s leave required part of the judgment to be dictated to a clerk; the resulting errors were described as bona fide and did not affect the judgment’s substance or outcome.

The Court held that, even if an error had occurred, the High Court should not have characterised it as dereliction of duty or made adverse remarks without first hearing the appellant.

The remarks and directions also risked serious career consequences and were inconsistent with the High Court’s role as guardian of the district judiciary.

It expunged and set aside those remarks and directions, allowed the appeal, and directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for placement before the Chief Justice.