Supreme Court on Rajsthan Judicial Officer 2026

Supreme Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against Rajasthan Woman Judicial Officer: Important Judgment on Article 227 and Natural Justice | 2026 INSC 1188

The Supreme Court of India has set aside adverse remarks and strictures recorded by the Rajasthan High Court against a woman judicial officer of the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services. The Court held that a judicial officer cannot be condemned for inadvertent errors in a judgment without first being given an opportunity to explain the circumstances.

In a significant judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Courts must exercise their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with fairness, restraint and magnanimity.

The judgment highlights the importance of natural justice, judicial independence, accountability and the proper exercise of supervisory powers over subordinate courts.

The decision is particularly important for Rajasthan Judiciary, RJS, UP PCS-J, MP Judiciary, Bihar Judiciary and other State Judicial Services examinations.

Case Details

Background of the Case

The matter originated from FIR No. 56/2019 registered at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

The FIR involved allegations of offences under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Three accused persons were involved in the case:

• Abdul Aziz, the father of the victim.
• A child in conflict with law (whose identity was not disclosed).
• Dev Kumar.

One of the accused was a child in conflict with law. Following a preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board concluded that the child, who was 16 years, 9 months and 28 days old on the date of the incident, was fit to be tried as an adult.

Accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the case to the Special Court under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Why Were Two Separate Trials Conducted?

The law requires separate proceedings for a child in conflict with law and an adult accused.

Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prohibits joint proceedings of a child in conflict with law and a person who is not a child.

Consequently, two separate trials were conducted:

1. Sessions Case No. 12/2022 – Proceedings against the child in conflict with law, who was transferred for trial as an adult.
2. Sessions Case No. 65/2019 – Proceedings against the co-accused Abdul Aziz.

Both cases arose from the same FIR and involved substantially similar witnesses and evidence.

The judicial officer delivered separate judgments in both cases on January 20, 2024.

Both accused persons were convicted of the offences found proved against them and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

What Was the Mistake in the Judgment?

While preparing the two separate judgments, certain overlapping portions of evidence and numerical details relating to witnesses from one trial were inadvertently incorporated into the judgment of the other trial.

These errors included incorrect references to prosecution witnesses and certain overlapping factual details.

The Rajasthan High Court subsequently examined the judgment while considering the suspension of sentence application filed by the child in conflict with law.

The High Court considered these errors serious and suspected that the trial judge had adopted a cut-copy-paste method while preparing the judgment.

It also questioned whether the judgment had actually been prepared by the stenographer or clerk and signed by the judicial officer without proper examination.

What Did the Rajasthan High Court Order?

On May 1, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court passed an order while rejecting the application for suspension of sentence filed by the convicted accused.

During the proceedings, the High Court made adverse observations against the concerned judicial officer.

The High Court alleged that:

• The judicial officer had neglected her responsibility of preparing the judgment.
• The judgment appeared to have been prepared using a cut-copy-paste method.
• The officer had failed to properly read and correct the judgment.
• The judicial officer was allegedly depending upon the stenographer or clerk for judgment writing.

The High Court also issued two important directions:

First: A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Rajasthan Judicial Academy for imparting training to the judicial officer in judgment writing.

Second: The Registrar General was directed to include a copy of the order in the judicial officer's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2024, after obtaining her comments.

These observations and directions became the subject matter of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Why Did the Judicial Officer Approach the Supreme Court?

The judicial officer challenged the adverse remarks and directions passed by the Rajasthan High Court.

She sought the removal of the adverse observations and strictures, arguing that they had been recorded without providing her an opportunity to explain the circumstances.

Before the Supreme Court, the judicial officer explained the reasons behind the overlapping portions in the two judgments.

Her explanation included the following circumstances:

1. Similar Evidence in Both Trials

Both cases originated from the same FIR and involved substantially similar witnesses and evidence. Therefore, certain overlapping details were inadvertently incorporated into the judgments.

2. Limited Resources in the Special Court

The Special Court dealing with POCSO cases had limited administrative and infrastructural resources.

3. Absence of the Stenographer

The only stenographer available to the Special Court had proceeded on leave.

4. Assistance of the Lower Division Clerk

Due to the stenographer's absence, the judicial officer had to dictate a portion of the judgment directly to the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on the computer. The remaining major portion was dictated to the stenographer after the latter returned.

5. Bona Fide Typographical Errors

The judicial officer explained that the errors were inadvertent and did not affect the substance or outcome of the judgments.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the following important legal questions:

1. Whether a High Court can record adverse remarks and strictures against a judicial officer on the judicial side without giving the officer an opportunity to explain?
2. Whether inadvertent typographical or factual errors in a judgment, which do not affect the outcome of the case, justify harsh personal remarks against the judicial officer?
3. How should a High Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

4. Whether concerns regarding the quality or conduct of a judicial officer should be dealt with through judicial proceedings or the administrative side of the High Court?

    

   Supreme Court's Observations and Reasoning

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the adverse remarks recorded against the judicial officer were uncalled for and avoidable.

The Court made several important observations.

A. Article 227: High Courts Must Strengthen the District Judiciary

Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to constitutional exceptions.

The Supreme Court emphasised that this supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised in a manner that guides, strengthens and nurtures the district judiciary.

The High Courts must exercise this power with fairness, restraint, magnanimity and a constructive approach.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have exercised greater magnanimity while dealing with the inadvertent errors in the judgments.

B. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The Supreme Court observed that the adverse remarks and strictures had been recorded without giving the judicial officer an opportunity to show cause or place her explanation on record.

Such an approach was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The Court reiterated that before recording serious adverse observations against a judicial officer, an opportunity must be provided to explain the circumstances.

This is particularly important when such observations may affect the officer's professional reputation and career.

C. Audi Alteram Partem: Right to Be Heard

The Supreme Court specifically relied upon the fundamental principle of natural justice known as Audi Alteram Partem.

The principle means:

"No person should be condemned unheard."

In other words, a person must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their explanation before an adverse decision or finding affecting them is made.

The Court held that the Rajasthan High Court had failed to follow this fundamental principle while recording adverse remarks against the judicial officer.

D. Inadvertent Errors Cannot Automatically Be Treated as Misconduct

The Supreme Court observed that castigating a judicial officer for inadvertent typographical errors, which did not affect the outcome of the case, was avoidable.

The judicial officer had explained the circumstances in which the overlapping facts and witness details appeared in the judgments.

The Court considered these explanations and held that the High Court's conclusion regarding dereliction of duty was not justified.

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not lay down that every error in a judicial judgment must be ignored. The ruling concerns the recording of personal strictures in the circumstances of this case, particularly without hearing the concerned officer.

E. Difference Between Criticism of a Judgment and Criticism of a Judge

The Supreme Court highlighted an important distinction between:

• Criticising an erroneous judicial order or judgment; and
• Making adverse personal remarks about the conduct, competence or calibre of the judicial officer.

A higher court may examine, correct or set aside an erroneous judicial decision in accordance with law.

However, making personal adverse remarks against the judicial officer is a different matter and requires adherence to established legal principles and procedural fairness.

F. Proper Procedure: Administrative Side Instead of Judicial Side

The Supreme Court reiterated that concerns relating to the conduct or quality of a judicial officer's work may appropriately be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice or the administrative Judge.

Where necessary, observations concerning the quality of a judgment or proceedings may be recorded in a remark slip and placed before the appropriate administrative authority.

The matter can then be considered on the administrative side, where the judicial officer can be given an appropriate opportunity to explain.

The Court cautioned against condemning judicial officers through strictures recorded on the judicial side without following the principles of natural justice.

G. Adverse Remarks May Have a Chilling Effect on the District Judiciary

The Supreme Court also highlighted the serious consequences of adverse remarks against judicial officers.

Such observations may:

• Damage the professional reputation of a judicial officer.
• Adversely affect the officer's judicial career.
• Create unnecessary pressure on subordinate judicial officers.
• Discourage independent and fearless decision-making.
• Have a chilling effect on the entire district judiciary.

The Supreme Court emphasised that judicial officers must be protected against unjustified personal condemnation while remaining accountable under the established legal framework.

Final Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the adverse observations and strictures recorded by the Rajasthan High Court could not be sustained.

The Court specifically ordered:

1. The adverse remarks and strictures recorded in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Rajasthan High Court's order dated May 1, 2025, were expunged and set aside.
2. The directions contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 regarding judgment-writing training and placement of the order in the judicial officer's ACR were also expunged and set aside.
3. A copy of the Supreme Court's order was directed to be transmitted to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for placement before the Chief Justice.
4. The appeal was allowed.

Appeal Allowed.

It is important to understand that the Supreme Court's decision concerned the adverse remarks and related directions against the judicial officer. It did not set aside the underlying convictions or sentences in the original criminal cases.

Important Constitutional Provisions and Legal Concepts

Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Article 227 provides the High Courts with the power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.

It enables High Courts to ensure that subordinate courts function within the limits of their authority and in accordance with law.

Exam Point: Article 227 deals with the power of superintendence of High Courts.

Audi Alteram Partem

It is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice.

It means that no person should be condemned without being given an opportunity of being heard.

Exam Point: Audi Alteram Partem means the right to be heard.

Natural Justice

Natural justice refers to basic procedural safeguards that ensure fairness in decision-making.

Two widely recognised principles are:

1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – No person shall be a judge in their own cause.
2. Audi Alteram Partem – Hear the other side.

Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Section 23 prohibits joint proceedings of a child in conflict with law and a person who is not a child.

Exam Point: Separate proceedings are required for a child in conflict with law and an adult accused.

Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

It deals with the preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board in cases involving a child above sixteen years of age alleged to have committed a heinous offence.

Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

It provides for transfer of the case to the Children's Court where the Board, following preliminary assessment, passes an order for trial of the child as an adult.

Important Previous Judgments Referred to by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court relied upon important earlier decisions while explaining the principles governing adverse remarks against judicial officers.

1. Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473.

The Supreme Court referred to this decision for the principles governing the recording of strictures against judicial officers.

It reiterated that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from making personal adverse remarks against judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.

2. In Re: 'K', A Judicial Officer

Citation: (2001) 3 SCC 54.

This judgment was referred to in connection with the principles governing adverse remarks and strictures against judicial officers.

3. Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382.

The judgment was referred to regarding the distinction between criticism of a judicial decision and personal criticism of a judicial officer.

4. Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 367.

The Supreme Court referred to this decision regarding the appropriate procedure for placing observations about the quality of a judicial officer's work before the administrative Judge or Chief Justice through a remark slip.

Why Is This Judgment Important for Judiciary Aspirants?

This judgment is important for candidates preparing for various State Judicial Services examinations because it covers multiple constitutional and procedural law concepts.

The following topics can be prepared from this judgment:

1. Article 227 – High Court's Power of Superintendence.
2. Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Audi Alteram Partem.
4. Judicial Independence.
5. Judicial Accountability.
6. Difference between Judicial Side and Administrative Side.
7. Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officers.
8. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
9. Section 15 – Preliminary Assessment.
10. Section 18(3) – Transfer of Case to Children's Court.
11. Section 23 – Prohibition of Joint Proceedings.
12. POCSO Act and Special Courts.

Important for RJS Aspirants: Since the matter arose from Rajasthan Judicial Services and involved the Rajasthan High Court and a judicial officer posted in Jhunjhunu, it is particularly relevant for Rajasthan Judiciary examination preparation.

Important Questions for Judiciary Exams

Q1. Which Article of the Constitution of India provides the High Court with the power of superintendence over subordinate courts?

Answer: Article 227.

Q2. What is the meaning of Audi Alteram Partem?

Answer: No person should be condemned unheard; every person must be given an opportunity of being heard.

Q3. Which provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 prohibits joint proceedings of a child in conflict with law and an adult?

Answer: Section 23.

Q4. Which provision provides for preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board in certain cases involving children above sixteen years?

Answer: Section 15(1).

Q5. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in 2026 INSC 1188?

Answer: The appeal was allowed and the adverse remarks, strictures and related directions against the judicial officer were expunged and set aside.

Q6. Can a High Court make adverse personal remarks against a judicial officer without giving an opportunity to explain?

Answer: The Supreme Court held that in the circumstances of this case, recording such adverse remarks without an opportunity to explain violated the principles of natural justice.

Q7. What is the distinction between judicial and administrative sides of a High Court?

Answer: The judicial side deals with adjudication of legal disputes, whereas the administrative side deals with the administration, supervision and service-related matters of the judiciary.

Conclusion

The judgment in In Re: XXX, A Judicial Officer in the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services is an important decision concerning the protection of judicial independence and procedural fairness within the Indian judicial system.

The Supreme Court clarified that while High Courts have wide supervisory powers under Article 227, these powers must be exercised responsibly and fairly.

A judicial officer should not be subjected to harsh personal criticism for inadvertent errors without being given an opportunity to explain the circumstances.

The ruling also reinforces the distinction between correcting an erroneous judgment and making adverse personal remarks against the judicial officer who delivered it.

Ultimately, the judgment sends an important message: Supervision of the subordinate judiciary should strengthen judicial administration, not undermine the dignity and independence of judicial officers.

For Judiciary aspirants, this decision is a valuable source for understanding Article 227, natural justice, judicial independence and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.