Supreme Court Expunges High Court Strictures Against Judicial Officer, Orders Rule-Making Push on Bail Disclosures

A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal by special leave filed by a District Judge cadre judicial officer against adverse observations recorded by the Rajasthan High Court while deciding a bail petition arising from an FIR registered at Gegal Police Station, Ajmer. The challenge confronted the correctness of strictures passed by the High Court in an order dated 3 May 2024 and sought expunction of the remarks and modification of the High Court order.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the High Court’s personal adverse observations against the appellant-judicial officer were uncalled for and expunged those strictures. The Court reiterated that higher courts should ordinarily refrain from recording personal criticism of subordinate judicial officers in judicial pronouncements and that administrative channels were the appropriate forum for dealing with judicial conduct. The Court noted that the High Court had passed the remarks without affording the officer an opportunity to explain and that the foundational precedents relied upon by the High Court (notably Jugal) stood displaced by later authority. The Court also directed communication of the judgment to Registrars General of all High Courts so that consideration might be given to incorporating procedural rules requiring disclosure of an accused’s prior criminal cases in bail applications.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We must not be understood as meaning that any conduct of a subordinate judicial officer unworthy 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 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.”

Background The dispute arose from FIR No. 224 of 2022 registered on 23 October 2022 at Gegal Police Station against multiple accused for offences including sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307 and 427 read with section 149 IPC after medical reports led to addition of sections 325 and 307. One co-accused (Sethu @ Haddi) obtained High Court bail on 16 December 2022. Two other accused, including Sethu @ Angrej, were denied Magistrate bail but later had bail applications listed before the appellant-judicial officer exercising charge as a Link Officer in the Sessions Court on 19 December 2022. Relying on parity with the accused earlier released and on a High Court precedent (Khet Singh), the appellant granted bail to several accused but omitted to advert to criminal antecedents of Sethu @ Angrej. The Sessions Judge cancelled that bail on 6 July 2023, recording that the accused’s counsel had misled the Court. On challenge, the High Court dismissed the bail plea and, while doing so, recorded stringent adverse observations against the appellant-judicial officer, concluding that his conduct “tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court” and directing that the impugned order be placed before the Chief Justice. The appellant approached this Court by special leave.

The Supreme Court reviewed settled precedents, notably Re: ‘K’, and Sonu Agnihotri, reiterated that adverse personal observations against subordinate judges should generally be avoided in judicial pronouncements and that administrative proceedings were the correct mechanism for addressing judicial conduct. The Court found that the High Court had not given the appellant an opportunity to explain and that the strictures were therefore unjustified; it also recorded that a decision relied upon by the High Court had since been reversed. The Court expunged the strictures, modified the impugned order accordingly, allowed the appeal and directed that copies of the judgment be communicated to Registrars General of all High Courts to consider inclusion of a rule requiring disclosure of prior criminal involvements in bail applications. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 871 Case Title: Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not specified in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Not specified in the judgment text]