Can a High Court castigate a trial judge for typographical slips without hearing her? The Supreme Court has held that it should not have, expunging Rajasthan High Court remarks against judicial officer that had questioned her approach to judgment writing, because she was never asked to explain.
New Delhi: A POCSO Special Judge in Jhunjhunu district, whom the Rajasthan High Court had directed to undergo training in judgment writing and whose ACR was to carry its order, has had the adverse remarks and strictures against her set aside and expunged by the Supreme Court, which held that they were made on the judicial side without giving her any opportunity to explain [In Re: XXX, A Judicial Officer in the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services].
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya allowed the officer’s appeal on November 2, 2026. The judgment was authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Court masked the officer’s name in the case title to protect her identity.
Why the remarks could not stand
The Bench held that the High Court, as guardian of the district judiciary, should have acted differently.
“Such adverse remarks may have the deleterious effect of destroying the Judicial Officer’s career and may also have a chilling effect on the entire district judiciary.”
The Court said the remarks suffered from a breach of natural justice because the officer was never asked to show cause before they were recorded.
“To castigate a Judicial Officer for inadvertent typographical errors in a judgment, which did not, in any manner, affect the outcome of the case was avoidable.”
It added that even if the High Court felt an error had occurred, the course it chose was contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem. Relying on Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal, the Bench noted that the appropriate course in such situations is to record observations in a remark slip placed before the administrative judge or the Chief Justice for follow-up on the administrative side, rather than condemning the officer on the judicial side.
What the High Court had recorded
The officer had decided two connected criminal trials. While hearing an application for suspension of sentence arising from one of them, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court rejected the application on merits by an order dated May 1, 2025, but went on to find that the trial judgment dated January 20, 2024 contained overlapping extracts of evidence and numerical details from the other trial, including wrong serial numbers for prosecution witnesses.
The High Court concluded that the officer had used a “cut, copy and paste” method, that the judgment had in all probability been scripted by a stenographer or clerk and signed without being read, and that she was shirking her responsibility. It directed the in-charge of the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy to train her in judgment writing and ordered a copy of its order to be placed in her ACR for 2024.
The officer’s explanation
Before the Supreme Court, the officer explained that the errors were bona fide typographical slips that did not alter the outcome or the substance of the judgment. She said the two cases were closely interwoven, with almost the same witnesses and evidence, and that the slip occurred because of limited resources and her stenographer being on leave.
What stands expunged
The Bench held that it could not agree that the officer had acted in dereliction of duty. The strictures in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the High Court’s order of May 1, 2025, and the directions in paragraphs 17 and 18 on training and ACR placement, were expunged and set aside. The Registry was told to send a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for placing before the Chief Justice.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a settled line: High Courts supervise the district judiciary under Article 227, but adverse remarks on a judicial officer’s competence or integrity, recorded on the judicial side, can permanently damage a career. Such remarks cannot be made without first giving the officer a chance to explain.
It also points High Courts to the proper channel. Concerns about the quality of a trial judgment belong in a remark slip for administrative action, not in strictures in a bail or suspension order, and minor clerical slips that do not affect the result should be met with restraint rather than censure.
Case Title: In Re: XXX, A Judicial Officer in the District Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13501 of 2025], 2026 INSC 1188
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta with Advocates Javed Khan, Vanya Gupta (AOR), Saurabh Gupta and Shivendra Singh for the appellant; Saurabh Rajpal (AOR) and Vinay Kumar Singh for the respondents