The Supreme Court has issued notice on a complainant’s plea seeking to remove a POCSO judge facing a rape FIR from that judicial charge, saying it has to balance the rights of the complainant and the accused officer.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Allahabad High Court administration and a judicial officer on a plea by the complainant in a rape case against the officer, who has sought that he be relieved of charge of POCSO cases while the case is pending [X v. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on November 2, 2026, and posted the matter to December.
The case
The complainant had lodged an FIR under Section 376 IPC in 2022 against Additional District Judge Ashok Bhartendu, who continues to discharge duties as a POCSO judge in Uttar Pradesh. She first sought information under the RTI Act about the vigilance enquiry against him, but the Central Public Information Officer declined, stating that the State Governor had exempted the High Court’s Vigilance Bureau Cell from the Act.
She then filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. The Allahabad High Court dismissed it, observing that its administration “knew what it was doing” in allowing the officer to continue, that no allegation regarding his discharge of judicial duties had been shown, and that the law would take its own course on the FIR.
The hearing
Justice Joymalya Bagchi initially urged the petitioner to pursue the criminal case. Noting her grievance that she had not been told about the progress of her complaint or the vigilance enquiry, he said the Court would issue necessary directions to the High Court so that the complaint is taken to its logical conclusion.
Justice Bagchi observed orally that the Court had to balance the rights of the victim with the right of the accused to challenge the proceedings, and that a limited enquiry into the outcome of the vigilance enquiry could be made. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the officer need not be suspended but should at least be relieved of the POCSO charge, which is a sensitive posting. “We understand that it’s a highly sensitive posting,” Justice Bagchi replied.
The allegations against the officer are untested. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The complainant is not identified, in keeping with the law on anonymity of complainants in sexual offence cases.
Why the order matters
Special courts under the POCSO Act deal with the most vulnerable witnesses, and public confidence in them depends on the perceived integrity of the presiding officer. The petition raises whether a judicial officer facing a pending sexual offence FIR should continue to hold such a charge, and how much information a complainant can obtain about an internal vigilance enquiry.
The Bench’s remarks indicate that it will weigh the complainant’s concerns against the officer’s right to a fair process, and that it may direct the High Court to ensure the complaint reaches a conclusion.
Case Title: X v. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 37096 of 2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 2, 2026