Adverse Remarks Without Hearing Set Aside: Rajasthan HC

Adverse Remarks Against Police Officer Without Hearing Set Aside; Relief Extended to Non-Petitioner on Parity: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court set aside adverse remarks, and a direction to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings, recorded against a police officer by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar while acquitting the accused, because he was not heard before the remarks were made. On the principle of parity it gave the same relief to another individual named in the remarks who had not challenged them. The disciplinary authority may still examine the matter independently (paras 11, 14).

Key holdings

Castigating remarks that could affect a person's career need a prior hearing on the proposed remarks (paras 5-6).

Remarks and a direction for proceedings in an NDPS acquittal judgment, made without hearing the officer, were set aside (para 11).

An equally unheard individual named in the same remarks got the same relief on parity without challenging them (paras 7-9, 11).

A constitutional court must not violate Article 21 by denying a similarly placed person the same relief (paras 9-10).

The disciplinary authority may examine the matter independently of the trial court's observations (para 14).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar at the relevant time, challenged the judgment of 29.04.2023 of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 63/2018 (paras 1-2). While acquitting the accused, the Special Judge passed adverse remarks against him and directed that proceedings be initiated against him under Order 35 Rule 6 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 (para 1). According to the petitioner, the trial judgment held that he had committed irregularities in a seriously irresponsible manner in discharging official duties and called for disciplinary and legal proceedings (para 2). He pleaded that he was never given an opportunity of hearing before the remarks were made (para 3).

Court's Findings

Following Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that before a court makes castigating remarks against any person, particularly remarks that could have serious consequences for that person's future career, he must be heard on the proposed remarks or strictures; otherwise the remarks violate the principles of natural justice (paras 5-6). The remarks also extended to Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi, who had not approached the High Court and was equally unheard, so he stood on the same footing as the petitioner (para 7). The absence of his own petition did not make the remarks against him correct: on the principle of parity, when an action suffers from a definitive legal infirmity, the benefit extended to one party must be extended to others similarly situated, and like cases must be decided alike (para 8). As a constitutional court mindful of Article 21, the Court held that fairness, equity and natural justice required the same relief for him without a separate challenge (para 9), citing Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (para 10). The record showed that neither had been heard (para 11).

Legal Principle

Before a court makes castigating remarks that could seriously affect a person's future career, it must hear that person on the proposed remarks; remarks made without a hearing violate natural justice. The High Court may extend the same relief, on parity, to a similarly placed person affected by the same infirmity without a separate challenge (paras 5, 8-9, 11).

Precedents Relied Upon

Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5, 11
Before a court makes castigating remarks against any person, particularly remarks that could have serious consequences for that person's future career, he must be given an opportunity of hearing on the proposed remarks or strictures; otherwise the remarks violate natural justice. Applied to set aside the trial court's remarks.
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat 2023 0 AIR(SC) 4444
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
Relied on to fortify the view that a constitutional court must extend the benefit of parity to a similarly placed person, failing which his Article 21 rights would be violated.

Statutory Provisions