{"id":358603,"date":"2025-09-01T16:30:37","date_gmt":"2025-09-01T11:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358603"},"modified":"2025-09-04T17:53:15","modified_gmt":"2025-09-04T12:23:15","slug":"supreme-court-stays-rajasthan-high-court-adverse-remarks-pocso-judge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/01\/supreme-court-stays-rajasthan-high-court-adverse-remarks-pocso-judge\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court\u2019s directions containing adverse remarks against POCSO Judge"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

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<\/a> (POCSO Act). Although the trials were conducted separately, the judge convicted both accused and delivered the judgments on the same day.<\/p>\n

The adult accused later filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the conviction and seeking suspension of sentence.<\/p>\n

High Court’s Observations:<\/h3>\n

The Rajasthan High Court refused to suspend the sentence but made serious observations against the Trial judge. The Court noted that:<\/p>\n