High Courts Should Ordinarily Refrain From Strictures Against Judicial Officers: Supreme Court Expunges Remarks in Bail Order

Kaushal Singh, a Rajasthan judicial officer of the District Judge cadre, was holding charge of a Sessions Court as Link Officer when three bail applications from an Ajmer FIR of 2022 came before him on 19 December 2022 (paras 3, 9). Treating the accused's case as no different from that of a co-accused whom the High Court had bailed, he granted bail, omitting to consider the accused's criminal antecedents (paras 10-11). The Sessions Judge cancelled that bail on 6 July 2023 (para 12). On 3 May 2024 the High Court, rejecting the accused's bail application, called the 2022 order grossly inappropriate and cavalier, faulted it for ignoring Jugal, and placed its order before the Chief Justice (paras 13-15).

The Court said the law is well settled that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side (para 18). It extracted In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer: such criticism condemns the officer unheard and may cause harm incapable of being undone, while the conduct can instead be brought to the Chief Justice by a confidential note for action on the administrative side (para 18). A three-Judge Bench relied on that decision in Sonu Agnihotri, which separates permissible criticism of an erroneous order from personal criticism of the officer, which should be avoided (para 19). Here the Single Judge made the strictures without giving the officer any opportunity of explanation or showing cause, and the High Court's order seemed founded entirely on Jugal, which this Court reversed in Ayub Khan on 17 December 2024 (para 20). The strictures were uncalled for and were expunged (para 21). Before parting, the Court noted that accounting for criminal antecedents in bail matters concerns courts across the country, citing the Punjab and Haryana High Court's rule requiring bail applicants to disclose other criminal cases (para 22).