Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan High Court's Strictures Against Sessions Judge

The Supreme Court today(August 29) granted a stay against the Rajasthan High Court's order wherein the High Court passed strictures and made adverse remarks against a judicial officer posted as Special Judge, POCSO Court. 

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on a special leave petition argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.

As per the brief facts, a minor accused a juvenile of raping her and alleged that the act was facilitated by her father. After it was determined that the juvenile was to be tried as an adult, the case of the two came before the judicial officer under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 

The judge convicted both the accused and delivered both judgments on the same day, although the trial was separately concluded. The adult filed an appeal challenging the order and also seeking suspension of the sentence before the Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court refused to suspend the sentence and directed the matter to be listed in October, but additionally observed: "8. A perusal of record of the case and also the judgment dated 20.01.2024 in Sessions Case No. 65/2019 clearly indicate that learned trial Court has passed two judgments on very same day, one relating to Abdul Aziz and other to present one. Both the cases were arising out of same FIR No. 56/2019 registered at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu but the process of trial was different. In Sessions Case No. 65/2019, 17 witness were examined and 30 documents were exhibited and DW-1 was examined as defence witness.

9. A perusal of judgment in the instant case clearly indicate that the trial Judge has shirked her responsibility and neglected her duty by not dictating the judgment in toto, rather, learned Judge has used methodology of cut, copy and paste, which shows that the judgment is in fact written by concerned Stenographer / Clerk. After preparing the judgment, the learned Presiding Officer has not taken care to read and correct the judgment so that irrelevant paragraphs may be striked out. This again shows that learned trial Judge instead of devoting time for judgment writing, was busy in other irrelevant work and leaving the judgment upon Stenographer or P.A. It is duty of a Judge to consider the factual aspect of the case and after applying the proper law, write a judgment. 

10. In U.S. Courts, role of a Judge has been defined as a person who presides over the trial from an elevated platform called dias. The Judge has five basic tasks and these are:- (I) Preside over the proceedings and see that order is maintained; (ii) To determine whether any of the evidence that the parties want to use is illegal or improper; (02) To ensure applicability of law on facts of the case and maintain standard to decide the case; (iv) To determine the real facts of the case and deicide accordingly; (02) To sentence convicted criminals appropriately.

11. Since this is a bail (SOS) order, therefore, we are not burdening ourselves on this issue but certainly this is an alarming situation that a Senior District Judge posted in POCSO Court is not devoting time to write a judgment rather depending upon a Stenographer. It is the duty of a Judge to dictate judgment from top to bottom which means entire judgment from para No. 1 to last para must be in steno diary. If it is not available, it means the Judge is shirking his or her responsibility and such a Judicial Officer is not entitled to remain in service of Judiciary."  

By the order, the High Court (Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain) also directed sending a copy of impugned judgments passed by the judicial officer to the Judge in charge of the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to impart training to the officer about judgment writing and further directed the Registrar General of the High Court to make a copy of the impugned order of the judicial officer as a part of his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2024.

The SLP was filed to the extent of seeking expunction of strictures/adverse remarks against the judicial officer, and also quashing of any further proceedings ensued or likely to ensue.

Case Details: SONIKA PUROHIT v STATE OF RAJASTHAN|Diary No. 44069-2025

Related - Supreme Court Expunges Rajasthan HC's Critical Remarks Against Magistrate Over Bail Order

Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge