MP High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Own Judge's "Damning & Disparaging" Remarks Against Sessions Judge

In a rare move, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated suo motu proceedings over a it's own judge's "damning" order making "disparaging" remarks against a Trial Court judge, while hearing a corruption-related bail matter. The Single Bench, in its order of September 12, had called for an inquiry and disciplinary action against a Sessions Judge for allegedly dropping charges against a government employee accused of embezzling ₹5 crores of public money. The Single Bench remarked that the Session Judge, without properly considering the facts of the case, appeared to have given the accused 'undue advantage'. The division bench noted that the Single Bench in paragraph 12 of his order went beyond legal criticism and made 'damning and disparaging' remarks about the Session Judge, despite the Supreme Court laying down law 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". In the impugned order, the Single Bench not only questioned the Session Judge's reasoning but also named the Judge rather than mentioning his designation. The Single Bench even recorded in its order that the Session Judge acted with 'ulterior motive' to help the accused secure bail. Taking strong exception, the Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal held,"This unfortunately was absolutely uncalled for and a violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's consistent direction to the High Court to desist from such observations in judicial orders". Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Sonu Agnihotri v Chandra Shekhar, the court reiterated that while superior courts could set aside erroneous orders and use strong language to criticize legal errors, it must refrain from passing "adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer". The Supreme Court had also emphasized that, "if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.”The Division bench further observed that the remarks of the Single Bench exceeded the scope of the bail jurisdiction, as no revision petition against the trial court's discharge order was pending before it. It emphasized,"This Court under article 227 and 235, exercises the power of superintendence over the District Judiciary. In that capacity, it has to not only correct the errors on the part of the District Judiciary, but has to also discharge its function as the guardian of 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 (as in weaken or reduced in power and authority)". The Division Bench, thus, directed the Registrar General to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court within 10 days. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 6, 2025. Case Title: Court in its own motion v State of Madhya Pradesh Click here to read/download Order

MP High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Own Judge's "Damning & Disparaging" Remarks Against Sessions Judge

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags