The Supreme Court recently stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had accused a special POCSO court Judge of “intellectual dishonesty” and ordered an inquiry into all his past cases spanning five years [Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by the concerned judicial officer, Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi, who had challenged the High Court's remarks as “unwarranted, stigmatic and violative of natural justice.”
The petition arose from a July 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a POCSO case. A Bench Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh of the High Court, while acquitting the accused, came down heavily on Raghuwanshi for not relying on an ossification report suggesting the victim might have been a major.
The High Court said the omission was not a mere error but reflected grave dereliction of judicial duty.
“This is height of intellectual dishonesty and negligence on the part of the Presiding Officer. This kind of negligence cannot be said to be originating from any kind of subordination to the High Court, but is a patent dishonesty and negligence apparent on record,” the High Court said.
It further observed that the trial court’s approach undermined the evidence on record and unjustly led to a conviction under the POCSO Act.
It also ordered the Principal District Judge (Inspection) and Principal Registrar (Vigilance) to seize and review Raghuwanshi's past case files and submit an inquiry report within 90 days.
Following this order, Raghuwanshi moved the Supreme Court seeking expunction of the remarks and quashing of the proposed inquiry.
His petition stressed that he had relied on the school’s scholar register to determine the victim’s age - an admissible form of evidence under established precedent and that neither party had chosen to rely on the ossification or dental reports during trial. He further submitted that even those medical reports, if properly considered, would not have shown the victim to be above 18 at the time of the incident.
After going through the petitioner's submissions, the top court stayed the directions passed by the High Court until further orders. It also directed the High Court to be arrayed as a party to the proceedings.
The Court clarified that the stay would apply only to the adverse remarks and directions issued against Raghuwanshi and not to the High Court’s decision acquitting the accused.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde along with advocates Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Hanumant Singh, Tejendra Singh, Sachin Singh and Ankit Tiwari.
[Read Order]