How to Read a 500‑Page File on One Page: A Judicial 4‑Column Framework

Modern judicial work is not short of law; it is buried in paper.

What slows a court is rarely the legal issue – it is the chaos of the record. A 500‑page appeal paper book or a bulky writ file can quietly drain 30–40 minutes of chamber time before the first point of law is even reached.

A simple, courtroom‑tested solution exists: a 4‑Column Judicial Working Sheet – a one‑page chronology that converts any massive file into a controllable, argument‑ready structure. Originally used by juniors to brief seniors, it maps perfectly onto how judges already think, and can be consciously adopted as a standard judicial discipline.

The 4‑Column Judicial Working Sheet

Print Page

From Overload To Order: A 5-Step Workflow System For Judges

 Judicial work today is not just about deciding cases correctly; it is about managing an overwhelming flow of files, deadlines, hearings, and administrative duties with consistency and calm. A simple, repeatable workflow can significantly reduce stress, delay, and error in a judge’s day-to-day functioning.

The 5-step system below takes tools familiar to advocates—reminders, summaries, checklists—and adapts them to the judge’s perspective to create a structured, judge-friendly workflow.

1. The 7–2–4 Rule: Taking Control Of Judicial Deadlines

Print Page

Bombay HC: It is not permissible to add the Judge who has decided the case as party respondent while challenging order passed by him

Thus, it can be safely said that an attempt in

joining judge who passed impunged order as party respondent

in these Appeals is not only aimed at pressurising him but also

to caution other judges not to pass order against him or they

would also face similar fate. Most importantly permitting such

impleadment will take away the essence of the judicial

system, wherein the judges are required to live the oath of

discharging duties without fear.

Registry is directed not to register any Appeal, wherein

judicial officer is made party Respondent and in any such

cases, objection be raised with regard to maintainability of

Appeal. This order be circulated to all Appellate Courts in

State of Maharashtra, for its compliance. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2025

Jagannath Prasad Shoke

 Vs State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent No.1

Shri P. P. Muley Special Judge appointed under Section

14(1) of SC/ST POA Act Addl. District & Session Court

Kalyan (West) 421301. ...Respondent No.2

CORAM R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED: 27th JANUARY 2026

Print Page

What is difference between Confession and extra judicial confession and It's value?

 Understanding Confession

A confession is "the direct admission of matter or facts of the cases either in the form of a written or oral statement". According to Sir James Stephen, it is defined as "an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime". Essentially, a confession is a statement made by an accused person that suggests or admits their guilt in relation to a criminal offense.

Types of Confessions

Confessions are broadly categorized into two main types: judicial confessions and extra-judicial confessions.

Judicial Confession

Print Page

LLM Notes: Concept of Judge as Law maker and Judge-Made Law in Indian Law

 The concepts of judge as lawmaker and judge-made law are rooted in the dynamic role of the judiciary in interpreting, applying, and shaping laws. In India, these concepts are particularly significant due to the judiciary's active involvement in addressing legislative gaps, protecting constitutional principles, and adapting laws to societal changes.

Judge as Lawmaker

Traditionally, judges are seen as interpreters of law rather than lawmakers. However, in practice, judges often engage in lawmaking through judicial decisions that establish new legal principles or clarify existing ones. This happens when:

Print Page

LLM Notes on Judicial Accountability in India

 Judicial accountability in India is a multifaceted concept that ensures judges are responsible for their conduct and decisions, maintaining public trust in the judiciary. This accountability is balanced with the need to preserve judicial independence, allowing judges to make impartial decisions without fear of external influence.

The Judiciary is not subjected to the same level of accountability as the Executive or the Legislative wings of the Government. The reason is that the principles of Judicial Independence and Accountability are sometimes regarded as fundamentally opposed to one another. Judicial independence is considered ‘an essential pillar of liberty and the rule of law’. So if Judiciary is made accountable to the Legislature or the Executive it will impact its Independence. So special provisions have been provided to ensure judicial accountability.

Print Page

Supreme Court: No Constitutional Court Can Direct Trial Courts To Write Bail Orders In A Particular Manner

 In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a chart as directed in paragraph 9 while deciding a bail application. However, if a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts. Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore MANU/RH/0611/2020 : (2020) 4 RLW 3386 cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case. No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. One Judge of a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial Courts should use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that another format is better. {Para 12}

16. Therefore, to conclude, we hold that the directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore MANU/RH/0611/2020 : (2020) 4 RLW 3386 cannot be said to be binding directions. At the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions made by the High Court. Non compliance with what is observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5388 of 2024.

Decided On: 17.12.2024

Ayub Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1347/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side.

Secondly, even assuming that the Appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, the High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer. The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side. 

{Para 13}

18. The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5388 of 2024.

Decided On: 17.12.2024

Ayub Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1347/2024.

Print Page

Whether the court can quash prosecution against accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC if no material is available him in chargesheet regarding that offence?

In the present case, at the outset, we must note that the

Applicant, a Judicial Officer, was never involved in the pending

lis, as the suit property was purchased by his brother

exclusively and only he was party to the litigation. There is no

reason for the deceased to have implicated the Applicant, as he

was not connected with the dispute at all. The material in the

charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the Applicant,

are too far fetched and definitely fall short of any instigation/

incitement and a bare reference to his presence in Miraj in the

month of May, where he is alleged to have threatened the

deceased and asked him to vacate the subject property is not

sufficient to attract instigation/incitement, as the offence is

registered on 24/06/2016. In any case, even it is not the

allegation of the prosecution that the Applicant abetted the

suicide by instigating or inciting the deceased in any manner,

as abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person

or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without

a positive act on part of the Applicant to instigate or aid in

commission of suicide by the deceased, he cannot be convicted

for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

In order to attract the offence under Section 306, clear

mens rea to commit the offence has to be established, as it

requires active/direct act, leading the deceased to commit

suicide left with no other option, but in the present case, the

material in the charge-sheet falls short of proving the

ingredients of Section 306 and, hence, in our view, by

exercising the inherent power conferred under Section 482,

the purpose of it being to prevent the abuse of process or to

secure the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to safeguard

the interest of the Applicant.

In absence of we exercising the power, the Applicant will

have to unnecessarily face the rigmarole of trial, which

ultimately would result in acquittal, as no material in the

charge-sheet collected by the prosecution attract the

ingredients of Section 306 of IPC and we would be failing in

discharge of our duty, if we do not step in and save the

Applicant from undergoing the long drawn process of trial, as

the material in the charge-sheet through close scrutiny, do not

in any manner, establish the ingredients of abetment of suicide

under Section 306 of IPC against him.

For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied that

human liberty, which is the most cherished constitutional

value, must be protected by us, by exercising the inherent

power conferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.959 OF 2016

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2060 OF 2024

Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar Vs  The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 18 th  NOVEMBER, 2024

ORDER (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.) :-

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:45637-DB.

Print Page

Orissa HC: Mere absence of affidavit supporting allegations against Judicial Officer does not warrant automatic dismissal of complaint and departmental proceedings

 The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, vide D.O. letter No. CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 dated 03-10-2014, issued a circular, that was later circulated as a guideline by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice as per Annexure-3 for dealing with the complaints against the subordinate judiciary, read as -

“As you are aware, recently, Hon'ble the CJI, vide his D.O. No. CJI/CC/Comp/2014/1405 dt. 03.10.2014 addressed to the Chief Justice of all the High Courts has asked the High Courts and subordinate judiciary not to entertain any complaint against a judicial officer it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to substantiate the allegation. Expressing concern over the large number of complaints being filed against subordinate judiciary by people having vested interest and personal agenda, Hon'ble CJI has directed that authenticity of the complaints must be ascertained before any action is taken on it. In view of the provisions of the Article 235 of the Constitution, further action relating to the grievance/complants against the judicial officers lies at the High Court level.”

The letter imports specific directives to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts, emphasising that complaints against judicial officers should not be entertained unless accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to substantiate the allegations. This guideline was issued to address the concerns over the rising number of complaints against the subordinate judiciary, often filed by individuals with vested interests and personal agendas. The Hon'ble CJI underscored the necessity of ensuring the authenticity of such complaints before taking any action to prevent unwarranted harassment of judicial officers. {Para 7}

8. A plain reading of the guideline is sufficient to understand its object. The words “accompanied by sworn affidavits” and “verifiable material to substantiate the allegation” have to be read together in a complete and comprehensive manner. It emerges, that, merely because a complaint is not supported by sworn affidavits, it does not automatically warrant an outright dismissal. In the complete and comprehensive reading of the said guideline, a complaint is not supposed to be ignored from its very inception without even verifying the legitimacy of the complaint as nowhere in the guideline the High Court is debarred from initiating its own enquiry over any complaint where the allegations prima facie reveals verifiable material supporting the complaint subject to an enquiry on the authenticity of the allegations against a concerned judicial officer. The object of initiating an enquiry in the first place is to ensure that serious allegations can be investigated thoroughly, even if the initial complaint lacks sworn affidavit, which underscores the High Court's authority and discretion in managing the subordinate judiciary.

While the guideline aims to protect judicial officers from unwarranted harassment, it does not eliminate the possibility of addressing genuine issues faced by individuals or communities due to the actions of a judicial officer. The High Court retains the responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of the complaints and take appropriate action based on verified facts. The requirement for sworn affidavits and verifiable material ensures that the process is fair and that decisions are not arbitrary. This is a kind of precaution suggested to protect the judicial officers from unwarranted harassment.

9. The concerned guideline issued by the Hon'ble CJI is designed to balance the need to protect judicial officers from frivolous complaints with the necessity of addressing genuine grievances. It is to uphold the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and judicial independence, ensuring that the judiciary function effectively and impartially. The guideline is to reinforce the importance of due process in handling complaints against judicial officers. It ensures that complaints are evaluated based on evidence and merit, thereby upholding the rule of law.

 In the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

(Before S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.)

Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs Orissa High Court and Others.

W.P. (C) No. 17678 of 2024

Decided on August 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1952.

Print Page

'Feeble excuses'; Bombay HC directs administrative action against Judicial Magistrate for non-compliance with order for expeditious disposal of trial

 2.2) In the report, the learned JMFC has stated that the said casecame up before her for the first time on 30th January 2023 and at that time, the concerned clerk did not point out to her that the said case is made time bound by the High Court. One of the reason given by the learned Judicial Officer is that, she is dealing with huge pendency of 10 years plus cases both Criminal and Civil and therefore, she has to give attention to each and every matter on priority basis. That, there is insufficient staff to her court and it goes on frequent leave.

3) Perusal of the report clearly indicates that even though the present case was placed before the learned Judicial Officer for the first time on 30th January 2022, she did not adopt necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the said case by taking recourse of the provisions of Cr. P.C. for giving complete effect to the Order dated 24th February 2021 passed by this Court.

4) Numerous other excuses are also given in the said report for not completing the said trial within the stipulated period. Even if the complainant was not cooperating with the trial court, the trial court has powers to apply provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take the said case to its logical end, as per the directions issued by this Court. The offence alleged against Applicant is under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.(page-4). As per the report itself, there are in all 9 witnesses.

5) Despite the said fact, learned Judicial Officer has now sought

an extension of 6 months to dispose of the said case.

6) We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the learned Judicial Officer in not complying with the directions issued vide Order dated 24th February 2021 and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the Judicial Officer concerned, is not serious in performing her judicial work. This requires attention by the learned Administrative Committee of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2021

Chandragupt Rambadan Chauhan  Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

 DATE : 9 th  AUGUST, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Judge Can't Retain Case File and deliver judgment After retirement

  One of the contentions raised in these appeals is

that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge

pronounced only one line order declaring the operative

part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017

and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd

October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge

demitted the office. On these facts, there is no

dispute. {Para 5}

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April,

2017. There were five weeks available for the learned

Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on

which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment

running into more than 250 pages has come out after a

lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned

Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even

after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned

reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us,

retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after

demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on

the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance

what has been done in this case.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024

@ Diary No.29911 of 2018)

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CBI CHENNAI  VS. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. 

Author: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

Dated: February 13, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 120.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Judgement Pronounced In Open Court But Signed After Transfer Of Judge A Valid Judgement

Applying the aforesaid exposition to the facts of present case, the judgment was pronounced in open Court and the objection is that the same was signed later on after the charge was transferred. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh (supra), has held that the judgment to be operative does not await signing thereof by the Court. It is not that after pronouncement the judgment was altered. The judicial act of pronouncement was performed and the signing and sealing which are the rules designed to secure certainty about its contents and matter remained, which as held by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors (supra), can be cured. Although I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner that the judgment was signed after transfer of charge in view of the roznama on record and date below the signature, the aforesaid decisions are relied upon to drive home the point that judicial act of pronouncement of judgment in open court was complete and hence no fault can be found in the manner of delivery. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 35 OF 202 3

Suvarna Ratnakar Taras Vs Mangalprabhat Lodha and others 

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : July 17, 2023.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Special Pay of Judicial Officer is Part Of Pay, Should Be Reckoned To Calculate Pension

 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contends that the action of the respondents in issuing

Government Orders which are completely at variance with the

directions contained in the judgment of this Court amounts to

an open challenge to the orders and authority of this Court and

that the said directions are completely illegal and violative of

the directions of this Court. {Para 14}

15. I have considered the contentions advanced. This

Court in the earlier round of litigation had specifically

considered the nature of the special pay granted to judicial

officers pursuant to the directions of the Shetty Commission.

It was found that special pay would come within the definition

of pay under Rule 12(23). Special Pay is a benefit which is

granted to officers posted in specific posts having

administrative responsibilities for the extra work which is done

by them. The argument that grant of special pay to some

officers will lead to a junior-senior anomaly had been agitated

in the earlier litigation also but did not find favour with this

Court. The argument cannot be sustained for a moment in

view of the fact that the principles on which a difference in pay

between a senior and junior is to be considered to be an

anomaly are provided in the very same Rule itself. Grant of

special pay for administrative duties would not, by any stretch

of imagination, result in any junior-senior anomaly since it is a

special emolument given for extra work done.

16.  We hope and trust that the appellants would put a

quietus to this issue, so that, objections of this nature are not

unnecessarily raised as against the judicial officers concerned.”

The impugned orders passed by the Government,

without considering the declaration of law by this Court, are

completely unsustainable. The contention of the respondents

that special pay cannot be reckoned for the purpose of fixation

of pension is without any merit whatsoever. The said

contentions are repelled. The orders and letters impugned in

these writ petitions are, therefore, set aside. It is declared that

the special pay granted to judicial officers is a part of their pay

and that it is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of

pension. The respondents shall take appropriate steps to see

that the pension of the judicial officers who drew special pay at

the time of their retirement is revised and the arrears are

disbursed to them forthwith, at any rate, within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO.694 OF 2022

 CHERIAN VARGHESE Vs STATE OF KERALA,

PRESENT

 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

Dated:  18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 

Print Page

Supreme Court directs pay hike for subordinate judiciary as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission w.e.f January 1, 2016

Subordinate Judiciary - Supreme Court directs pay hike for subordinate judiciary as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission w.e.f January 1, 2016.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

 Writ Petition (Civil) No.643/2015;

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA . & ORS.

Coram: N.V. RAMANA; CJI., KRISHNA MURARI; J., HIMA KOHLI; J.

Dated:  27-07-2022 

Print Page

Allahabad HC: If Judge adjourns a case because of Advocate's strike, it amounts to misconduct

 The Principal Judge owes an explanation to this Court why he had adjourned the case acknowledging a probable strike by Advocates on 20.05.2022. The adjournment by the Principal Judge prima facie amounts to misconduct. No Court ought to take notice of a strike or a probable strike by the Advocates. The directions of the Supreme Court in District Bar Association., Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya and others, (2020) 17 SCC 672 read:

"6.6. In spite of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

decisions, this Court time and again deprecated the lawyers to go

on strikes, the strikes were continued unabated.

Once this is the position, the action of the Trial Judge in adjourning the case on 21.05.2022 to 08.07.2022 requires to be explained by him, which he shall do through a report for the time being before any further orders are passed. Even otherwise, in a Family Court, the presence of an Advocate is not a necessity, though this Court is mindful of the fact that no meaningful justice can be done in the absence of the learned Counsel for parties.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2850 of 2022

Petitioner :- Premraj Pratap Singh

Respondent :- Alka Singh @ Meenu

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Order Date :- 23.5.2022

Print Page

Supreme Court: Factors which Judge should consider while giving Opinion for Remission of sentence of convict U/Sec 433(2) CrPC

 In Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, this Court laid down that the following factors must be reported by the police in respect of the grant of pre-mature release:

(a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect the society;

(b) Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future;

(c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime;

(d) Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in prison; and

(e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.

21. However, this is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge. If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra), the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.

22. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors which have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). These factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra) and State of Haryana v. Jagdish17, this Court has reiterated that these factors will be considered while deciding the application of a convict for premature release.

25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner’s application for remission should be re-considered. We direct the Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the application afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning that takes into consideration all the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). The Special Judge, Durg must provide his opinion within a month of the date of the receipt of this order. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD; ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.

Writ Petition (Crl) No 49 of 2022

Ram Chander Vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

Dated:  April 22, 2022.

Citation: (2022) 12 SCC 52.

Print Page

When the high court should not consider a complaint against Judicial Officer in his transfer, promotion and compulsory retirement?

  In context of the three complaints filed against the appellant, it is important to note that the same were never communicated to the petitioner during his service tenure and that the complaints had been subsequently closed. Moreover, two out of the three complaints were closed prior to the meeting of the Higher Judicial Committee and therefore, could not have been the basis of the decision of the Committee. Additionally, in so far as the complaint dated 20.10.2015 (bearing No. R/V/JP/PIN/118/2015) is concerned, it is neither supported by any affidavit nor has any address been provided in it and importantly, was also closed by the respondent prior to the appellant’s discharge order. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the Standing Order No. 03./S.O./2015 dated 10.06.2015 which directed that:

“The complaint making allegations against members of the subordinate judiciary in the states should not be entertained and no action should be taken thereon, unless it is accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and verifiable material to substantiate the allegations made therein

……..

……..

……..

The entry of the complaint in the pre-institution register for inward number will not be treated as pendency of Vigilance matter against the Judicial Officer and will not be taken into consideration against the Judicial Officer in any service matter including transfer, promotion and for compulsory retirement.”

(emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the record clearly showcases that no verifiable complaint was filed against the appellant that could form the basis of the disciplinary proceeding against him. {Para 55}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2022

 ABHAY JAIN Vs THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Print Page

Whether high court should remove a Judicial officer if he passes a wrong order without extraneous reason?

  Hence, in light of the above judicial pronouncement, we hold that the accused K.K. Jalia had the right to file bail application at any stage when undergoing imprisonment as an under-trial prisoner. The fact that the two other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail was a valid reason for granting bail to accused K.K. Jalia. If the High Court was to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order, there should have been strong grounds to suspect appellant’s bona fides and the order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality. This is clearly not the case in the present matter. The appellant was competent and well within his right to grant bail to the accused in discharge of his judicial functions. {Para 64}

65. This court in P.C. Joshi vs State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 491] held that:

“That there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one view and that too for alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The enquiry officer has not found any other material, which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty or that he has been actuated by any corrupt motive. At best, he may say that the view taken by the appellant is not proper or correct and not attribute any motive to him which is for extraneous consideration that he had acted in that manner. If in every case where an order of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear of writing a judgment so as not to face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot act independently or fearlessly. Indeed the words of caution are given in K.K. Dhawan case [(1993) 2 SCC 56 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 325 : (1993) 24 ATC 1] and A.N. Saxena case [(1992) 3 SCC 124 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 861 : (1992) 21 ATC 670] that merely because the order is wrong or the action taken could have been different does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer. In spite of such caution, it is unfortunate that the High Court has chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in this case.”

66. We concur with the view of this Court in the aforesaid case that merely because a wrong order has been passed by the appellant or the action taken by him could have been different, this does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer.

67. This court in Krishna Prasad Verma vs State of Bihar [(2019) 10 SCC 640], while setting aside the High Court’s order, quashed the charges against the officer therein and granted him consequential benefits while holding that:

“No doubt, there has to be zero tolerance for corruption and if there are allegations of corruption, misconduct or of acts unbecoming of a judicial officer, these must be dealt with strictly. However, if wrong orders are passed, that should not lead to disciplinary actions unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file.

….…..

……...

………

………

The main ground to hold the appellant guilty of the first charge is that the appellant did not take notice of the orders of the High Court whereby the High Court had rejected the bail application of one of the accused vide order dated 26-11-2001 [Shivnath Rai v. State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 30563 of 2001, order dated 26-11-2001 (Pat)] . It would be pertinent to mention that the High Court itself observed that after framing of charges, if the non-official witnesses are not examined, the prayer for bail could be removed, but after moving the lower court first. The officer may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. It would be pertinent to mention that the enquiry officer has not found that there was any extraneous reason for granting bail. The enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal picking holes in the order granting bail.

…….

…….

…….

…….

We would, however, like to make it clear that we are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the judicial officer concerned. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they form part of the service record these can be taken into consideration to deny selection grade, promotion, etc., and in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. We again reiterate that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind, etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect.”

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2022

  ABHAY JAIN Vs THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Coram: UDAY UMESH LALIT; VINEET SARAN, JJ. 

Dated: March 15, 2022

Author: Vineet Saran, J.

Print Page

Whether a judgment once pronounced in open Court becomes operative even without the signatures of the Judges?

 The question as to whether the judgment was a valid one came up for consideration. While dealing with such a question, Bose J. spoke for the Court thus:-

"In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in the open court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there: that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All the rest-the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainity about its content and matter- can be cured; but not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its content formely declared in a judicial way in open court. The exact way in which this is done does not matter. In some courts the judgment is delivered orally or read out, in some only the operative portion is pronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after giving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the table for a given number of days for inspection." "An important point, therefore, arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open court. But, however, it is done, it must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court performs after the hearing. Everything else uptil then is done out of court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may, not often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgment either, however, heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the court. That is what constitutes the judgment.........."

Bose J. continued to say:

"As soon as the judgment is delivered that becomes the operative pronouncement of the court. The law then provides for the manner in which it is to be authtenticated and made certain. The rules regarding this differ but they do not form the essence of the matter and if there is irregularity in carrying them out it is curable. Thus if a judgment happens not to be signed and is inadvertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects in the mode of its subsequent authentication".

Supreme Court of India

Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University & Others on 11 November, 1987

Print Page