HC should Refrain from making Unwarranted & Out of Context Remarks against Trial Court Judges, Rules SC

The Supreme Court struck down adverse remarks made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against a special POCSO trial court judge and a public prosecutor, calling the criticism “totally unwarranted.” The top court set aside findings that had accused the judge of “intellectual dishonesty,” reinforcing judicial protection against sweeping personal indictments made without adequate basis.

The controversy arose after a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act convicted an accused in a sexual assault case. On appeal, the High Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult, and sharply criticised the trial judge and prosecutor for what it termed a “major lapse.” It went further to issue show cause notices and recorded that the conviction reflected “intellectual dishonesty.” Aggrieved by these remarks, both the special judge and the prosecutor approached the Apex Court challenging the strictures.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the High Court’s conclusions were unsustainable and contrary to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which governs determination of age. The Court observed that the “hasty conclusion” branding the trial judge’s conduct as “intellectual dishonesty” was “totally unwarranted” and found the criticism to be out of context.

Setting aside the impugned observations insofar as they concerned the judge and prosecutor, the Bench underscored that judicial officers cannot be subjected to disparaging remarks without compelling justification.