Court’s Decision
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court expunged the scathing remarks passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a Judicial Officer for granting bail in a criminal case. The Court held that the High Court had acted without affording the Judicial Officer an opportunity to explain his conduct and that such strictures should ordinarily be avoided. The Court emphasized, “To err is human… While superior courts can criticise erroneous orders, personal criticism of Judges must be avoided.”
It further recommended that all High Courts incorporate rules requiring bail applicants to disclose prior criminal cases to aid judicial scrutiny.
Facts
The case arose from an FIR registered on 23 October 2022 in Ajmer, Rajasthan, against multiple accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the key accused, Sethu @ Angrej, was denied bail by the Magistrate but was later granted bail by a Sessions Court where the appellant, a Judicial Officer, was acting as a Link Judge.
The complainant later sought cancellation of bail, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge citing misrepresentation by the accused’s counsel. The High Court, while hearing the accused’s fresh bail plea, not only denied relief but also passed harsh strictures against the Judicial Officer, including allegations of indiscipline, negligence, and ignoring precedent.
The Judicial Officer challenged these strictures before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in passing personal strictures against a Judicial Officer on the judicial side without granting him an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the conduct of the Judicial Officer warranted disciplinary observations.
- Whether strictures can be passed based on a precedent that was subsequently overruled.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the High Court’s observations were made without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. He submitted that the order granting bail was based on an understanding that the case of the accused was on parity with another co-accused who had already been granted bail by the High Court. Furthermore, the precedent relied on by the High Court to criticize him—Jugal v. State of Rajasthan—had already been overruled by the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan.
He submitted that such public strictures, even if later expunged, cause irreparable harm to a Judicial Officer’s reputation and career.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State sought to uphold the High Court’s remarks, arguing that the Judicial Officer had ignored crucial facts such as the criminal antecedents of the accused and failed to consider the High Court’s prior order distinguishing the roles of the accused. It was argued that judicial accountability is paramount, and the Officer had erred in granting bail without due diligence.
However, it was not disputed that the Officer was not given an opportunity to be heard before adverse comments were made.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legal framework governing the relationship between High Courts and the subordinate judiciary. It emphasized the dual role of the High Court—as a supervisory authority and as a guardian of the subordinate judiciary. Citing In Re: K, A Judicial Officer [(2001) 3 SCC 54], the Court reiterated that strictures should not be passed against Judicial Officers without giving them a chance to explain.
The Court also emphasized that criticism in judicial orders becomes public, irreversibly harming the officer’s reputation and morale, especially when made without hearing. The Bench added that “every Judge, irrespective of status, is prone to committing errors… To err is human.”
Precedent Analysis
- In Re: K, A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54: The Court laid down that strictures against Judicial Officers should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and only after hearing the officer concerned. The present judgment reproduces paragraphs 15 to 17 in full to reinforce this principle.
- Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382): A three-Judge Bench reiterated the caution against personal remarks against Judicial Officers and stressed the distinction between criticism of orders and of individuals.
- Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763): The Supreme Court had overruled Jugal v. State of Rajasthan, the very precedent on which the High Court based its strictures. This further weakened the High Court’s reasoning.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that while the appellant-Judicial Officer had committed a judicial error in granting bail without considering the criminal history of the accused, the error was not of such a magnitude as to attract scathing remarks.
Importantly, the judgment clarified that strictures should not be passed without hearing the officer concerned. The Court criticized the High Court for relying on a precedent (Jugal) that had been overruled and observed:
“The entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment in Jugal… which stands reversed by this Court.”
The Court further underscored that judicial officers work under immense pressure and occasional errors should be corrected through supervisory means—not public condemnation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, expunged the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer, and modified the impugned order accordingly. It directed that its order be sent to all High Courts for consideration of incorporating rules mandating disclosure of prior criminal history in bail applications.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms judicial independence and safeguards the dignity of the subordinate judiciary. It creates a procedural expectation that any adverse observations against Judicial Officers must follow the principle of natural justice. It also encourages institutional reforms to ensure better bail scrutiny by mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents.
Cases Referred and Their Role
- In Re: K, A Judicial Officer – Core precedent for avoiding public strictures against Judges without hearing.
- Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar – Reinforced the necessity of restraint by higher courts.
- Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan – Overruled Jugal and invalidated the High Court’s reliance on it.
- Jugal v. State of Rajasthan – Cited by the High Court but reversed; hence, irrelevant to justify the strictures.
- Khet Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096) – Referred in granting bail but considered improperly applied.
FAQs
Q1. Can High Courts pass strictures against subordinate Judicial Officers?
Yes, but only in rare cases and ideally not without giving the officer a chance to respond. The Supreme Court advises that concerns be addressed through administrative channels instead.
Q2. What should be considered while granting bail to an accused with prior criminal record?
Judicial Officers must evaluate prior criminal history and incorporate such details in their orders to ensure a well-reasoned decision.
Q3. What institutional reform did the Supreme Court recommend in this judgment?
The Court urged all High Courts to incorporate rules requiring disclosure of criminal antecedents in all bail applications for better scrutiny.
