The Supreme Court recently expunged adverse remarks and strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a woman judicial officer who was accused of using a "cut, copy and paste" approach while writing a judgment in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case [In Re: XXX, a Judicial Officer in The District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services].
A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya set aside the High Court's directions ordering the entry of the remarks into the judge's annual confidential report (ACR) and sending her for judgment-writing training.
Opening the judgment with Alexander Pope’s quote "To err is human, to forgive, divine" and the Jain tenet of Uttama Kshama (forgiveness), the Bench observed that the High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227 should guide, strengthen and nurture the district judiciary rather than penalise it.
"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...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," the Bench observed.
The case arose from a first information report (FIR) lodged in 2019 for gang-rape under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The case involved two separate trials: one against an adult accused and another against a child in conflict with law who was ordered to be tried as an adult. Due to a statutory bar on joint trials under the Juvenile Justice Act, the judge conducted parallel proceedings and pronounced separate convictions on the same day, sentencing both to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
While deciding the juvenile convict's suspension of sentence plea on May 1, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the trial judge had shirked its responsibility by copying paragraphs from the co-accused's judgment. The High Court remarked that the judge had left judgment-writing to the stenographer and held that such an officer was "not entitled to remain in service of judiciary."
Aggrieved by the strictures, the judicial officer approached the Supreme Court seeking their expungement.
The officer explained that the two trials had interwoven facts and identical witnesses. She added that her sole stenographer had proceeded on leave, compelling her to dictate parts of the judgment directly to a clerk to meet statutory deadlines under the POCSO Act. She submitted that the overlapping paragraphs and incorrect witness numbers were bona fide clerical errors that did not alter the verdict.
Agreeing with the officer, the Supreme Court held that the High Court castigated her on the judicial side without issuing a show-cause notice.
"Condemnation of the conduct of the Judicial Officer by the High Court on the judicial side would 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," the judgment held.
The Bench reiterated that if a High Court finds faults in a judge's working, the proper course is to record observations in a remark slip and place it before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, rather than passing strictures in open court orders.
Allowing the officer's appeal, the Court directed the expungement of paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the High Court order and instructed the Registry to communicate the ruling to the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
[Read Judgment]