Supreme Court seeks response from Allahabad HC on plea to remove POCSO judge facing rape case

The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Allahabad High Court administration and Additional District Judge (ADJ) Ashok Bhartendu on a petition filed by a rape survivor seeking Bhartendu's removal as a special POCSO judge in view of a pending rape case against him in Delhi.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana also said that it would examine the progress of the vigilance complaint lodged against Bhartendu.

During the hearing, advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh, appearing for the rape survivor, highlighted the irony of a judicial officer presiding over a court designated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) while facing criminal proceedings for rape himself.

"Higher judicial officer is unfortunately an accused and cognisance has already been taken, and still he is continuing as a POCSO judge... His quashing petition is pending, but there is no stay," Singh submitted.

"You proceed with the criminal case," the Bench initially remarked indicating that it was not inclined to absolve Bhartendu from his duties in the present stage.

However, Singh urged the Court to invoke its constitutional powers of superintendence over the subordinate judiciary, pointing out that administrative action against the judge had stalled.

"There is a provision for superintendence and it has been held by a Constitution Bench... There is no disciplinary enquiry against the erring official. He is coming in the way for the trial to be concluded. At least, he may be absolved from judicial duties," Singh pressed.

The Bench, however, clarified that it would not directly strip the officer of his post and that aspect would be left to the High Court administration.

"The complaint you made to the vigilance, you were not informed about its progress and there is no visible progress in the matter. So that we will address and direct the High Court to take the necessary steps and take it to its logical conclusion... We will keep our observations limited to the disciplinary proceedings," Justice Bagchi observed.

When Singh reiterated the prayer to divest Bhartendu of his judicial duties, the Court maintained that the High Court should take the call.

"We will leave that to the High Court." it said.

The dispute originated from an FIR registered against Bhartendu on December 8, 2022, at the Mayur Vihar Phase-I Police Station in Delhi under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging sexual assault under the false pretext of marriage.

Bhartendu challenged the FIR before the Delhi High Court. While interim protection against arrest was granted in March 2023 on the prima facie view that it was a case of breach of promise to marry rather than a false promise at inception, the Delhi High Court clarified in a later order that there was no stay on the trial court proceedings. The High Court directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law following the filing of the chargesheet.

Pursuant to the High Court’s directions, the Karkardooma District Court in Delhi took cognisance of the offences against Bhartendu. The trial court also rejected his application seeking redaction of his name from the case records, holding that redaction cannot be permitted prior to his committal.

With the formal committal in the trial pending before the Delhi court, the survivor approached the top court contending that a judicial officer facing rape prosecution cannot be permitted to continue adjudicating sensitive sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act.