Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition filed not to challenge the conviction but solely to seek expunction of adverse remarks made against the trial judge and to quash any disciplinary or consequential proceedings arising from those remarks, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. granted a stay on the operation of the Rajasthan High Court’s order, wherein the High Court had passed strictures and made adverse observations against a judicial officer serving as Special Judge, POCSO Court.
Background
A minor girl accused a juvenile boy of raping her, with allegations that her father facilitated the act. After it was decided that the juvenile would be tried as an adult, both cases came before the same judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Although the trials were conducted separately, the judge convicted both accused and delivered the judgments on the same day.
The adult accused later filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the conviction and seeking suspension of sentence.
High Court’s Observations:
The Rajasthan High Court refused to suspend the sentence but made serious observations against the Trial judge. The Court noted that:
-
Both judgments were passed on the same day despite separate trials.
-
In one of the cases , 17 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited, along with a defence witness.
-
However, in the judgment under challenge, the trial judge appeared to have copied and pasted portions of the other judgment.
-
The High Court stated that this indicated the judge had not written or dictated the judgment herself, but had likely left the task to a stenographer or clerk.
-
It criticized the judge for not reading or correcting the judgment, resulting in irrelevant paragraphs being included.
-
The Court emphasised that a judge must personally write or dictate the entire judgment after applying their mind to the facts and the law.
In an especially strong observation, the Court remarked:
“This is an alarming situation… A judicial officer who shirks responsibility and relies on a stenographer for judgment writing is not fit to remain in judicial service.”
High Court’s Directions:
-
A copy of the judgments passed by the trial judge was directed to be sent to the Rajasthan Judicial Academy for the purpose of giving training on judgment writing.
-
The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to place a copy of the impugned order in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the judicial officer for the year 2024.
Supreme Court’s order:
The Court issued notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, further action pursuant to the directions issued in the impugned order was stayed.
[Sonika Purohit. v State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1885, decided on 29-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Javed Khan, Adv., Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR, Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Tanisha Kaushal, Adv.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
