The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice to the Allahabad High Court administration on a plea filed against a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh continuing to hold charge of POCSO cases despite being an accused in a rape case.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. The case arises out of Allahabad High Court's dismissal of a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto in respect of the judicial officer, Additional District Judge (ADJ) Ashok Bhartendu, discharging official duties as a POCSO judge.

The cases before the High Court and the Supreme Court have been initiated by the complainant in the rape case against the judicial officer. The underlying FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC in 2022.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi initially impressed upon the petitioner-complainant to pursue the criminal case (the rape case). Taking note of the petitioner's grievance qua not being informed about progress of her complaint/ the vigilance enquiry, the judge said that the Court will pass necessary directions to the High Court so that the complaint is taken to its logical conclusion.

Justice Bagchi observed that the Court has to balance two rights - right of the victim and right of the accused to challenge the proceedings. The judge added that limited enquiry into the outcome of the vigilance enquiry initiated against the judicial officer could be conducted.

The petitioner's counsel urged that the judicial officer may not be suspended, but he may atleast be absolved from the POCSO Court judicial charge, as it's a very "highly reputed position". "We understand that it's a highly sensitive posting", replied Justice Bagchi.

Ultimately, the bench issued notice on the plea. The matter has been posted to December.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the High Court administration “knew what it was doing”, as the judicial officer had been discharging his duties. On query, the High Court noted, the complainant was unable to demonstrate any allegation on record regarding the judicial officer's discharge of duties. So far as the complainant's FIR, the High Court said that law would take its own course.

The petitioner-complainant had approached the High Court being aggrieved by the Central Public Information Officer's refusal to answer her queries under the RTI Act. The CPIO claimed that the State Governor had exempted the High Court's Vigilance Bureau Cell from the scope of RTI Act.

Upon the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. The top court issued notice to the High Court administration and the concerned judicial officer.

Case: X v. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, SLP(C) No. 37096/2026