Supreme Court expunges High Court remarks against Rajasthan judge for typographical errors

The Supreme Court examined whether these remarks were justified given that the errors were inadvertent typographical mistakes that did not affect the case outcome.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: A Judicial Officer (District Judge Cadre, Rajasthan Judicial Services, identity masked). Respondent: The State/High Court (implied by the appeal against the High Court's order). Bench: Justice Mehta.

What the court decided

• The Court held that the adverse remarks recorded by the High Court were uncalled for and avoidable.
• The Court found that the High Court violated principles of natural justice by recording strictures without affording the Judicial Officer an opportunity to show cause or explain.
• The Court expunged the adverse remarks and strictures recorded in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the impugned High Court order.
• The Court directed that concerns regarding a Judicial Officer's conduct should be addressed on the administrative side, not the judicial side.

Also in the document

• The Court cited the principle that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against Judicial Officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.
• The Court noted that the errors in the judgment were bona fide typographical errors that did not alter the outcome or substance of the judgment.
• The Court referenced the case of Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan to support the view that strictures recorded without an opportunity to explain are uncalled for.