Supreme Court: High Court adverse observations on judge expunged

The Supreme Court, constituted by Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Apresh Kumar Singh, allowed the appeal filed by a District Judge‑cadre officer and directed that the adverse observations recorded by the Rajasthan High Court be expunged. The apex court held that the High Court’s remarks, which alleged negligence and a ‘cut‑copy‑paste’ method in the officer’s judgments, could not stand.

The officer had delivered separate judgments in two trials stemming from FIR No.56/2019. The Rajasthan High Court observed that overlapping excerpts in the judgment concerning a child accused indicated negligence and a ‘cut‑copy‑paste’ preparation, and it issued directives against the officer without granting her an opportunity to be heard. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in recording such adverse observations and directives without observing the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court observed that the alleged errors were merely typographical and did not affect the substance or outcome of the judgments. It emphasized that natural justice requires a chance to explain before any adverse comment is made, citing precedents that stress restraint in imposing strictures on judges and directing such administrative concerns to the High Court’s administrative side under Article 227. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s observations, ordered their expungement, and transmitted the order to the Rajasthan High Court for placement before its Chief Justice.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: In Re: Xxx A Judicial Officer In The ... vs Appellant And Learned Counsel ... (2026 INSC 1188).