Madhya Pradesh High Court takes rare suo motu action against a judge, citing ‘damning and disparaging remarks’ in a controversial bail order, highlighting judicial accountability and oversight.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: In a rare judicial intervention, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of an order passed by one of its own single-judge benches, raising serious questions about the limits of judicial discretion and accountability.
Background of the Case
The matter concerns a case of alleged embezzlement of lakhs of rupees in a land acquisition transaction. Last year, Roop Singh Parihar, a computer operator in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, allegedly transferred over ₹25 lakh to eight individuals, including himself and his wife, instead of the intended ₹6.55 lakh to four rightful beneficiaries. Parihar is accused of forging the Collector’s orders to facilitate these transfers.
On September 12, 2025, Single-Judge Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta ordered an inquiry against Additional Sessions Judge Vivek Sharma, alleging that the judge had discharged serious offenses under IPC Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 107, allowing the accused an undue advantage for bail. Justice Gupta remarked:
“It appears that Ist Additional Sessions Judge has ulterior motive in holding charge under Section 406 of IPC only against the applicant to give undue advantage to him by which applicant can avail the benefit of bail.”
Justice Gupta also directed:
“A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat, Jabalpur and to put up the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking permission for conducting an inquiry and for taking disciplinary action against Ist Additional Sessions Judge (Shri Vivek Sharma), Shivpuri who had discharged the present applicant from the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 107 of IPC without considering the facts of the case and to give undue advantage to the applicant to get benefit of bail.”
The Division Bench Intervention
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal reviewed the single-judge order and described it as “speculative and uncalled for.” They criticized the disparaging remarks against the trial court:
“In paragraph 12 of these order, the Ld. Single Bench has passed damning and disparaging remarks against the Ld. Trial Court much against the consistent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the High Courts must desist from passing observation which have the propensity to besmirch the fair name of the Trial Court Judge, even before he is given an opportunity to defend his order.”
The Division Bench emphasized that:
“The observations in paragraph 12 of the orders under consideration were in excess of the exercise of bail jurisdiction as the Ld. Single Bench was not in seisin of any revision preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court but has yet, commented upon the order framing charge by the Ld. Trial Court.”
They further noted the guardian role of the High Court over the district judiciary:
“The High Court becomes the sentinel protecting the District Judiciary from its (High Court’s) excesses and ensure that the independence and fearlessness of the District Judiciary is not emasculated.”
Rare Suo Motu Action
Suo motu intervention by a High Court against one of its own judges is highly unusual. The Division Bench explained:
“Though, extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 and inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C inheres in the High Court, irrespective of the roster, the exercise of either has to be through a conscious process where the High Court, unambiguously or through inescapable inference, discloses its intention to exercise such authority. However, when the High Court exceeds its discretion and jurisdiction in a given case, the same has to be deemed an error on the part of the High Court rather than presuming the same to be an order in the exercise of its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction.”
The bench directed the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to file an appeal before the Supreme Court within ten days and listed the matter for hearing on October 6, 2025.
Case Title:
Court on Its Own Motion v High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION NO. 38432/2025
Read Order:
