Supreme Court Stays Madhya Pradesh HC Order Questioning Legal Proficiency Of Sessions Judge

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had passed adverse remarks against a Sessions Judge and directed that the issue be placed before the High Court Chief Justice to consider whether the judicial officer should be sent for training.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while issuing notice, after hearing Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for the petitioner-judge).

To briefly put facts of the case, in May 2023, one Sanju Vadiva was booked for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 of IPC and Section 5 l, 5 j(ii), 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner-judge, after examining the material and hearing the case, delivered a judgment of conviction against him.

In appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused and passed a separate order questioning the proficiency of the petitioner-judge. It further placed the matter before the Chief Justice to consider whether the judge ought to be deputed for training.

"Let this file be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to take a call to the intellectual and legal proficiency of the concerned Judge [...] and as to whether he is required to be deputed for training because in the opinion of this Court, he has absolutely no appreciation of evidence and prima facie is not fit to discharge work of Additional Sessions Judge", the High Court ordered.

Aggrieved by the strictures, and seeking their expunction, the petitioner-judge approached the Supreme Court. He also seeks the quashing of any action against him pursuant to the High Court order.

In support of his case, he pleads that he delivered a well-reasoned and comprehensive judgment, running through a meticulous appreciation of all relevant oral and documentary evidence. Further, he referred to binding judicial precedents and applied them to the facts of the case. Yet, the High Court passed sweeping and unreasoned remarks against him.

The petitioner further assails the fact that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. "the Hon'ble High Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, travelled far beyond the record and condemned the Petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Such strictures, apart from being unwarranted, are violative of principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."

It is also highlighted that the petitioner is a Judicial Officer with an unblemished service record, having served as District & Additional Sessions Judge since December 2019. Statedly, his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) consistently rate his work as Very Good and Excellent. Further, during the entire course of service, he never received any adverse remark regarding the quality of his judgments, either in ACRs or from any appellate judgments.

The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Kushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where it recently reiterated that High Courts must exercise restraint and avoid stigmatic remarks against judicial officers in judgments. "This Hon'ble Court emphasized that errors in appreciation of evidence may be corrected in appeal but cannot be treated as misconduct or dishonesty. The observations in the present case stand squarely covered by this binding precedent", he claims.

Case Title: PANKAJ CHATURVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH | Diary No(s). 65670/2025