The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer, emphasizing that higher courts should refrain from making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., highlighting that criticism of judicial orders should focus on errors rather than personal conduct. The judgment also recommended incorporating provisions in High Court Rules to mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, ensuring transparency and informed judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned observations were expunged.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves an appeal by Kaushal Singh, a Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan District Judge Cadre, challenging the strictures passed against him by the Rajasthan High Court. The controversy arose from a bail order dated 19th December 2022, where the appellant granted bail to Sethu @ Angrej and others in FIR No. 224 of 2022 (registered for offenses under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, and 427 read with Section 149 IPC). The High Court, while hearing a subsequent bail cancellation plea (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024), criticized the appellant for granting bail in a “grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner,” ignoring Sethu @ Angrej’s criminal antecedents and misapplying the principle of parity from a previous bail order (Khet Singh v. State of Rajasthan). The High Court also noted that the appellant failed to consider the principal role of Sethu @ Angrej in inflicting lethal injuries, contrary to the earlier observation that the fatal injury was attributed to another accused. The appellant contended that the strictures were passed without giving him an opportunity to explain, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court, relying on precedents like Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, held that adverse remarks against judicial officers should be avoided and expunged the High Court’s criticism, while recommending reforms in bail application disclosures.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case begins with the registration of FIR No. 224 of 2022 at Police Station Gegal, Ajmer, against multiple accused, including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for offenses under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. Sethu @ Haddi was granted bail by the Rajasthan High Court on 16th December 2022, while Sethu @ Angrej’s bail application was initially rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, on 17th December 2022. Subsequently, Sessions Judge Kaushal Singh (the appellant) granted bail to Sethu @ Angrej on 19th December 2022, applying the principle of parity.The complainant then moved for bail cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC, which was allowed by the Sessions Court on 6th July 2023, citing misleading arguments by Sethu @ Angrej’s counsel. Aggrieved, Sethu @ Angrej approached the Rajasthan High Court, which, in its order dated 3rd May 2024, not only rejected his bail but also passed strictures against the appellant-Judicial Officer for alleged negligence and misapplication of law.The appellant challenged these remarks before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 2254 of 2025, leading to the present appeal (Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025). The Supreme Court expunged the High Court’s adverse remarks, holding that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard, and recommended reforms in bail application procedures. The appeal was allowed on 18th July 2025, with directions to all High Courts to consider mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications.
READ ALSO:Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. Firstly, it emphasized that higher courts must exercise restraint while making adverse remarks against judicial officers, as such strictures violate principles of natural justice by condemning them unheard. The Court relied on precedents like Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar, which caution against personal criticism of judicial officers in judgments.Secondly, the Court noted that the High Court’s criticism of the appellant was based on a misinterpretation, as the judgment in Jugal v. State of Rajasthan (which the High Court cited) had already been reversed in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan. This undermined the foundation of the High Court’s strictures.Thirdly, the Court highlighted the need for transparency in bail proceedings, recommending that all High Courts adopt rules requiring accused persons to disclose their criminal antecedents, similar to Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules. This would ensure informed judicial decisions and prevent suppression of material facts.Finally, the Court reiterated that judicial discipline demands corrective measures be taken administratively (e.g., through confidential reporting to the Chief Justice) rather than through public censure in judgments, as unwarranted remarks harm judicial morale and independence. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s adverse observations were expunged.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against the appellant-judicial officer, holding that such strictures were unwarranted and violative of natural justice. The Court emphasized that higher courts must refrain from passing personal criticisms against subordinate judicial officers in judicial orders, as such remarks cause irreparable harm to their reputation and independence. Instead, any concerns regarding judicial conduct should be addressed through administrative channels by bringing them to the notice of the Chief Justice confidentially. The Court further recommended that all High Courts incorporate provisions in their rules mandating the disclosure of an accused’s criminal antecedents in bail applications, similar to the existing practice in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, to ensure transparency and informed decision-making. The impugned order of the High Court was modified to the extent of expunging the strictures, while the rest of its findings remained undisturbed. The judgment reaffirmed the delicate balance between judicial accountability and the protection of judicial officers from unwarranted public censure, reinforcing the principles laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title:Kaushal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan Citation:2025 INSC 871 Criminal Appeal No.:[Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2254 of 2025] Date of Judgment: 18th July 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath, . Justice & Sanjay Karol, &. Justice Sandeep Mehta,
Download The Judgement Here