Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that constitutional courts must exercise caution and restraint before recording adverse remarks or strictures against judicial officers, particularly when such observations have the potential to damage their professional reputation and career. Emphasising the importance of natural justice and institutional fairness, the Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a Special Judge posted in Jhunjhunu district, Rajasthan, after finding that the judicial officer had not been given an opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to certain errors in her judgments.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya allowed the judicial officer’s appeal seeking the removal of adverse observations and consequential directions contained in the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated May 1, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the remarks were uncalled for and avoidable, particularly because they had been recorded on the judicial side without issuing notice to the officer or considering her explanation.

The dispute arose from two criminal cases decided by the appellant, who was serving as a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). While delivering judgments in the two matters, certain overlapping portions of evidence and numerical details relating to prosecution witnesses from one trial were inadvertently incorporated into the judgment of the other.

The errors included incorrect serial numbers of prosecution witnesses and overlapping extracts of evidence. On noticing these discrepancies, the Rajasthan High Court examined the judgments and made critical observations concerning the manner in which the appellant had performed her judicial responsibilities.

The High Court remarked that the judicial officer was not devoting sufficient time to writing judgments and was instead depending upon her stenographer. It further observed that she was shirking her responsibilities and questioned her suitability to continue in judicial service.

The High Court also directed the In-charge of the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to provide training to the officer in judgment writing. Additionally, it directed that a copy of the order be placed in the officer’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2024.

These observations and directions had consequences beyond the correction of errors in judicial decisions. They carried serious implications for the officer’s professional standing, reputation and future career prospects. The judicial officer, therefore, approached the Supreme Court seeking expungement of the adverse remarks and consequential directions.

Her principal grievance was that the High Court had recorded disparaging observations against her without providing an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the errors had occurred. She contended that the mistakes were inadvertent and did not affect the substance or outcome of either judgment.

The case consequently raised important questions concerning the limits of judicial supervision, the safeguards available to judicial officers against unwarranted strictures and the obligation of constitutional courts to follow principles of natural justice before making observations capable of affecting an individual’s professional career.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India was particularly relevant to the dispute. It confers upon every High Court the power of superintendence over courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to constitutional limitations. This supervisory jurisdiction enables High Courts to ensure that subordinate courts function within the framework of law and maintain appropriate judicial standards.

However, the power of superintendence is not unrestricted. Its exercise must remain consistent with fairness, judicial discipline and the institutional responsibility of High Courts towards the subordinate judiciary.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the present case reaffirmed that the High Court’s supervisory authority must be exercised with appropriate restraint, especially when the observations concern the personal conduct, competence or integrity of a judicial officer.

Arguments of the Parties:

Arguments advanced by the appellant-Judicial Officer

The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the adverse remarks and strictures recorded against her by the Rajasthan High Court. Her principal contention was that the High Court had made serious observations concerning her professional competence and conduct without giving her an opportunity to present her explanation.

She argued that the errors identified in the two judgments were inadvertent and bona fide. According to her, the mistakes were essentially typographical and clerical in nature and did not affect the findings, reasoning or ultimate conclusions reached in either case.

With respect to the incorrect serial numbers assigned to prosecution witnesses, the judicial officer explained that these were accidental errors arising during the preparation and finalisation of the judgments. She maintained that such numerical discrepancies could not reasonably be treated as evidence of negligence or dereliction of judicial duty.

Regarding the overlapping portions of evidence and factual details appearing in the two judgments, the appellant explained that the cases were closely connected and substantially interwoven with each other. The witnesses examined in both proceedings were almost identical, and the substantive evidence presented in the two matters was largely similar.

According to her explanation, the factual similarities between the proceedings had contributed to the inadvertent incorporation of certain overlapping extracts and numerical details while preparing the judgments.

The appellant also brought to the Supreme Court’s attention the practical difficulties faced by her while performing judicial duties. She explained that the available resources were limited and that her stenographer was on leave at the relevant time. These circumstances, according to her, contributed to the inadvertent errors.

She maintained that the mistakes did not demonstrate any deliberate disregard of judicial responsibility. Nor did they establish that she was avoiding her duties or improperly depending upon her stenographer for the discharge of judicial functions.

A significant aspect of her challenge concerned the serious nature of the observations recorded by the High Court. The remarks suggested that she was not devoting adequate time to judgment writing and was shirking her responsibilities. The High Court had also questioned her entitlement to remain in judicial service.

The appellant contended that such observations were disproportionate to the nature of the errors identified in the judgments. She argued that the High Court could have sought an explanation or adopted an appropriate administrative procedure before recording conclusions capable of affecting her professional reputation.

She further objected to the direction requiring her to undergo judgment-writing training at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy and the direction to place a copy of the High Court’s order in her ACR for 2024.

According to the appellant, these directions were consequential to the adverse findings and could not be sustained independently when the underlying remarks themselves had been recorded without following the principles of natural justice.

Her challenge was therefore not an attempt to deny the existence of errors in the judgments. Rather, she questioned the manner in which those errors had been interpreted and the procedure adopted by the High Court before attributing professional negligence and dereliction of duty to her.

She accordingly requested the Supreme Court to expunge the adverse remarks, set aside the consequential directions and protect her professional record from the impact of observations made without affording her an opportunity of hearing.

Position of the respondents

The matter before the Supreme Court arose from the appellant’s challenge to the Rajasthan High Court’s order. The respondent side was represented by counsel, but the case summary does not provide a detailed account of the specific submissions advanced on its behalf.

The High Court’s underlying observations were based on discrepancies identified in the judgments delivered by the appellant. These included overlapping extracts of evidence from two separate trials and incorrect numerical details concerning prosecution witnesses.

The High Court had considered these errors sufficiently serious to comment upon the judicial officer’s approach to judgment writing. It had also directed that she receive training at the Rajasthan Judicial Academy and that the order be incorporated into her ACR.

However, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether such adverse conclusions and consequential directions could legally be sustained when the judicial officer had not been afforded an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the errors occurred.

The Court was therefore required to assess the proportionality of the High Court’s response and determine whether its supervisory authority had been exercised consistently with the principles of natural justice and institutional fairness.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the adverse observations and strictures recorded by the Rajasthan High Court against the appellant were unwarranted. The Bench found that the High Court had failed to provide the judicial officer with an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the errors in her judgments before making observations that could seriously affect her professional reputation and career.

The judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, emphasised that High Courts occupy an important institutional position as guardians of the subordinate judiciary. Their supervisory powers must be exercised not merely to correct errors but also to ensure that judicial officers are treated fairly and their professional dignity is protected.

1. Adverse remarks without an opportunity of hearing violate natural justice

The most significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling was its emphasis on the principles of natural justice.

The Bench observed that the Rajasthan High Court had recorded disparaging remarks and strictures against the appellant on the judicial side without providing her an opportunity to show cause or place her explanation on record.

The Court considered this procedural omission particularly serious because the observations were not limited to identifying mistakes in the judgments. Instead, the High Court had proceeded to question the appellant’s dedication to judicial responsibilities and her suitability to continue in judicial service.

The Supreme Court held that such observations could not be made without first giving the affected judicial officer an opportunity to explain her position.

The Bench observed:

“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 nonadherence to the principles of natural justice.”

The observation reinforces the fundamental rule that a person should not be subjected to adverse findings affecting their reputation or professional standing without being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The principle of audi alteram partem, which means that no person should be condemned unheard, is an essential component of natural justice. It requires an authority proposing to make adverse findings against an individual to provide an appropriate opportunity to explain the relevant circumstances.

Although judicial officers are subject to institutional supervision and accountability, they do not lose their entitlement to procedural fairness while performing their duties.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning makes it clear that judicial independence and accountability must operate together. A High Court can certainly examine the quality of judgments delivered by subordinate courts and take appropriate corrective measures. However, serious personal allegations concerning a judicial officer cannot be recorded casually or without following a fair procedure.

2. Errors in judgments must be distinguished from deliberate negligence

The Supreme Court also examined the nature of the mistakes identified in the two judgments.

The discrepancies included incorrect serial numbers of prosecution witnesses and overlapping extracts of evidence from one case appearing in the judgment of another.

The appellant had explained that the two cases were closely connected and substantially interwoven. The witnesses and substantive evidence in both proceedings were almost identical, making the factual material considerably similar.

She had also explained that limited resources and the absence of her stenographer had contributed to the inadvertent errors.

The Supreme Court found sufficient credibility in this explanation and did not agree with the High Court’s conclusion that the mistakes demonstrated a lack of commitment towards judicial responsibilities.

The Bench was particularly concerned that the High Court had attributed serious professional shortcomings to the appellant without first examining her explanation.

The distinction between an inadvertent error and deliberate or persistent negligence is important in judicial administration.

Judgments must undoubtedly be accurate, carefully reasoned and based on the evidence available on record. Judicial officers are expected to exercise diligence while preparing and delivering decisions, particularly in criminal proceedings where the rights and liberty of individuals may be directly affected.

However, the mere presence of typographical errors or overlapping factual details does not automatically establish that a judicial officer has neglected her responsibilities.

The nature of the mistake, the circumstances in which it occurred and its impact on the decision must be considered before drawing conclusions about the officer’s professional conduct.

In the present case, the Supreme Court was not persuaded that the errors justified the sweeping observations made by the High Court.

The Court specifically disapproved of castigating a judicial officer for inadvertent typographical errors where those errors had not affected the outcome of the proceedings.

This approach recognises that judicial accountability should be based on a fair assessment of conduct rather than assumptions drawn from isolated mistakes.

3. High Courts must act as guardians of the subordinate judiciary

Another important aspect of the judgment concerned the constitutional responsibility of High Courts towards judicial officers working in subordinate courts.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers upon High Courts the power of superintendence over courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions.

This authority enables High Courts to maintain judicial discipline, ensure proper administration of justice and supervise the functioning of subordinate courts.

However, the Supreme Court emphasised that this supervisory jurisdiction must be exercised with a sense of responsibility and institutional magnanimity.

The Bench observed that the High Court should have acted with greater magnanimity while exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227.

It stated:

“…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…”

This observation highlights an important dimension of the relationship between High Courts and subordinate judicial officers.

The High Court is not merely an authority exercising administrative and supervisory control. It also has an institutional responsibility to protect the dignity, independence and professional confidence of judicial officers working under its supervision.

The Supreme Court’s observations do not mean that High Courts must overlook genuine misconduct, serious negligence or deficiencies in judicial work. Rather, they indicate that supervisory powers should be exercised proportionately and in accordance with established principles of fairness.

Where errors are identified in judgments, the appropriate response should depend upon their nature and seriousness. A mistake that can be corrected through ordinary judicial or administrative measures should not automatically become the basis for questioning an officer’s professional integrity or suitability for judicial service.

The Bench therefore reminded High Courts that their supervisory authority must be exercised in a manner that strengthens the subordinate judiciary instead of unnecessarily discouraging its officers.

4. Unwarranted strictures can damage judicial careers and affect the district judiciary

The Supreme Court also highlighted the wider consequences of recording adverse remarks against judicial officers.

The Bench observed that High Courts must exercise considerable caution before making observations that could affect the professional future of a member of the subordinate judiciary.

It specifically warned that such remarks could have a damaging impact on the career of the concerned judicial officer and could also create apprehension among other members of the district judiciary.

The Court observed that:

“…as a guardian of judicial officers of the State, recording 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.”

This observation is particularly significant because judicial officers work in an environment where the quality of their decisions and professional conduct are continuously subject to institutional scrutiny.

Adverse remarks recorded in judicial orders may influence future assessments, professional opportunities and the overall reputation of an officer. Where such observations are incorporated into service records, their consequences can extend well beyond the particular case in which they were made.

The Court was therefore concerned that an officer’s career should not be adversely affected by observations made without sufficient examination of the circumstances or adherence to procedural fairness.

The reference to a chilling effect on the district judiciary is equally important.

If judicial officers are exposed to severe personal criticism for every inadvertent error, they may develop an apprehension that even bona fide mistakes could result in damaging professional consequences.

Such an atmosphere would not strengthen judicial administration. Instead, it could undermine professional confidence and discourage judicial officers from exercising their responsibilities independently.

The Supreme Court’s intervention therefore served a broader institutional purpose by emphasising that judicial supervision must maintain a balance between accountability and the protection of judicial dignity.

5. Training directions and ACR entries could not be sustained

The Supreme Court also examined the consequential directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court had directed the In-charge of the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to impart training to the appellant in judgment writing. It had further ordered that a copy of its judgment be placed in her ACR for the year 2024.

These directions were closely connected with the adverse conclusions recorded against the judi