The country’s highest court stepped in swiftly, pressing pause on a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had fired unusually sharp barbs at an Additional Sessions Judge.
A Bench halted the part of the earlier order that branded the trial judge as someone who “has absolutely no appreciation of evidence” and is “not fit” to conduct criminal trials. With that, the Supreme Court signalled that courtroom disagreements over evidence cannot morph into character indictments without due process.
The judge at the centre of the storm had reached the top court seeking removal of these remarks and protection from any administrative fallout. His appeal stemmed from a case in which he had convicted a man under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, sentencing him to two decades in prison.
The High Court, on appeal, later overturned the conviction. It disagreed with the way the judge had assessed the prosecutrix’s age and his treatment of the DNA evidence, even describing the supporting school documents as “concocted.” But the matter escalated when, alongside the acquittal, the High Court issued a separate order questioning the judge’s very fitness to preside over Sessions cases and suggested that he be evaluated for further training.
Feeling blindsided, the judge argued before the Supreme Court that his original conviction was grounded in a thorough reading of witness testimony, school records, and established precedent. He contended that the High Court had ventured far beyond the permissible boundaries of an appellate review by attacking his competence without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court has now frozen those remarks and sought a response from the State, setting the stage for a closer look at where judicial critique ends and personal condemnation begins.
