The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had made scathing personal remarks against an Additional Sessions Judge [Pankaj Chaturvedi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and stayed the portion of the order where the High Court had said the trial judge “has absolutely no appreciation of evidence” and “prima facie is not fit to discharge work of Additional Sessions Judge.”

The direction came on a plea filed by Additional Sessions Judge Pankaj Chaturvedi who approached the top court seeking deletion of the remarks and a stay on any administrative action that could follow from the High Court’s order.

The case originated from a criminal appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by a man convicted under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The trial court, presided over by Chaturvedi, convicted the accused and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The accused filed an appeal against this decision in the High Court.

In November 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

It disagreed with Chaturvedi's findings on the prosecutrix’s age and the evidentiary value of the DNA report. It observed that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate evidence on record and had relied on “concocted” school documents to conclude that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

While doing so, the High Court passed a separate order with caustic remarks on Chaturvedi's merit as a Sessions Judge. It noted that Chaturvedi did not know how to handle evidence and was unfit to handle Sessions cases.

It then placed the matter before the Chief Justice of the High Court to assess whether he needed to be sent for training.

Aggrieved by these remarks, Chaturvedi moved the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, Chaturvedi submitted that his judgment convicting the accused was “well-reasoned and comprehensive,” reflecting a meticulous assessment of both oral and documentary evidence.

He pointed out that he had examined school records, mark sheets, and testimonies of teachers to determine the victim’s age and had relied on binding precedents.

His petition further stated that the High Court, while hearing an appeal against conviction, had travelled beyond its jurisdiction by questioning his competence instead of limiting itself to the merits of the case. He said that he was condemned unheard and that the observations violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

With the Supreme Court's notice and stay, the matter will be heard next after the State files its response.

Chaturvedi was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde along with advocates Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Prakash Sharma, Venkatesh Rajput, Hanumant Singh, Sachin Singh and Ankit Tiwari.

[Read Order]