KAUSHAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1221 : 2025 INSC 871

                             Kaushal Singh
                                   v.
                         The State of Rajasthan
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3053 of 2025)
                                 18 July 2025
     [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the expunction of strictures passed by the High
       Court against the Judicial Officer.

                                  Headnotes†
       Strictures – Strictures against the judicial officers –
       Expunction – High Court passed strictures against the Judicial
       Officer that the Judicial Officer had passed the order granting
       bail to the accused in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier
       manner while ignoring the criminal record of the accused; and
       that the act of the Judicial Officer tantamounted to indiscipline,
       negligence and, ignorance and disobedience of the orders
       passed by the High Court, and directed that the copy of the
       order be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court
       for perusal – Expunction of:
       Held: High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures
       against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial
       side – Strictures passed by the High Court against the Judicial
       Officer were uncalled for and thus, are expunged – Strictures
       and/or the scathing observations were made by the Single Judge
       of the High Court to the detriment of the Judicial Officer without
       providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause –
       Furthermore, the entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems
       to be based on the judgment by the High Court in Jugal’s case
       which stands reversed by this Court in the case of Ayub Khan’s
       case – Impugned order modified to that extent. [Paras 18, 20, 21]
       Judicial directions – Accounting for the criminal antecedents
       of the accused while considering the bail applications – Rule 5
       of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the Punjab and Haryana High
       Court Rules specifically provide that in every application for

* Author
1222                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    bail presented to the High Court the petitioner to state whether
    similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme
    Court, with its result, and petitioner’s involvement in any
    other criminal cases – Issuance of directions by this Court
    that every High Court to consider incorporation of a similar
    provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal
    Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused
    to make disclosures regarding its involvement in any other
    criminal cases previously registered – Communication of the
    said order to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for
    the incorporation of the similar Rule, if such provision does
    not exist. [Paras 22-24]

                            Case Law Cited
    In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer [2001] 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 54;
    Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. [2024] 11 SCR 861 :
    2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382; Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan,
    2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – referred to.
    Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine
    Raj 4096; Jugal v. State of Rajasthan [2024] 12 SCR 680 : 2020
    SCC OnLine Raj 2691 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Penal Code, 1860; Punjab and
    Haryana High Court Rules.

                            List of Keywords
    Strictures; Expunction of strictures; Strictures against Judicial
    Officer; Bail granted in grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner;
    Indiscipline; Negligence; Ignorance and disobedience of orders/
    judgments passed by High Court; Chief Justice of High Court;
    Scathing observations; Detriment of Judicial Officer; Opportunity
    of explanation; Criminal antecedents of accused; Bail application.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    3053 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2024 of the High Court
    of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRMBA No. 4677 of 2024
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1223

                         Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Balasubramaniam, R (col), Sr. Adv., Javed Khan, Ms. Vanya Gupta.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., Aman Prasad, Ms. Shagufa Khan,
       Ms. Nidhi Jaswal.

                         Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre1
       in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, has approached
       this Court through this appeal by special leave in order to assail the
       strictures passed against him in order dated 3rd May, 20242 passed by
       a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
       Bench at Jaipur3 while deciding the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
       Application No. 4677 of 2024.
4.     The chronological list of events, relevant and essential for disposal
       of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
5.     First Information Report4 No. 224 of 2022 was registered at Police
       Station Gegal, District Ajmer on 23rd October, 2022 against various
       accused persons including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for
       the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307,
       427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 18605.
6.     Sethu @ Haddi was arrested on 21st November, 2022 whereas
       Sethu @ Angrej was arrested on 25th November, 2022 in connection


1    Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Judicial Officer”.
2    Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.
3    Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.
4    For short ‘FIR’.
5    For short, “IPC”.
1224                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      with the aforesaid FIR. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi
      vide order dated 16th December, 2022.
7.    It may be mentioned here that while passing the order dated 16th
      December, 2022, the High Court observed that the allegation of
      inflicting the lethal injury was against the accused Sethu @ Angrej
      from whom the case of the applicant therein (Sethu @ Haddi) was
      different.
8.    At this stage, we are persuaded to note that the said FIR does not
      bear any reference to the offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter
      being invoked in the case. As per the formal FIR, the offences under
      the various other sections of IPC mentioned above were applied
      against the accused in the said case. However, subsequent to the
      procurement of the medical reports, the Investigation Officer added
      offences punishable under Sections 325 and 307 IPC to the case.
      The report under Section 173(2) CrPC came to be filed against the
      accused persons nominated in FIR No. 224 of 2022 for the offences
      under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149
      of IPC vide chargesheet dated 20th December, 2022.
9.    The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an application for bail which
      was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ajmer on 17th
      December, 2022. Thereafter, said accused applied for bail under
      Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736 and fortuitously,
      the same came to be listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer who
      was holding the charge of the Sessions Court in the capacity of a
      Link Officer. As many as three separate bail applications arising out of
      FIR No. 224 of 2022, to be specific, Bail Application Case No. 1244
      of 2022 (Sachin Sen and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan); Bail Application
      Case No. 1246 of 2022 (Tarachand alias Taru v. State of Rajasthan)
      and Bail Application Case No. 1247 of 2022 (Sethu alias Angrez v.
      State of Rajasthan) were listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer
      on 19th December, 2022.
10. It appears that while arguing the bail applications, the contention which
    was raised before the Court was that the case of the bail applicants
    was not different from that of Sethu @ Haddi, who had been enlarged
    on bail by the High Court vide order dated 16th December, 2022.


6    For short, “CrPC”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1225

                    Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan


11. The appellant-Judicial Officer seems to be carrying some
    misconception that the life-threatening injuries were attributed to the
    said Sethu @ Haddi and thus, the case of the applicants before him
    was not different from the said accused (Sethu @ Haddi). Applying the
    principle of parity and based on the order passed by the High Court
    in the case of Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan7, the
    appellant-Judicial Officer granted bail to all the aforesaid accused
    persons. It transpires that while considering the bail applications of
    accused Sethu @ Angrej, the appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to
    consider his criminal antecedents.
12. The complainant in FIR No. 224 of 2022 moved for cancellation of
    bail granted to the accused, Sethu @ Angrej by filing an application
    under Section 439(2) of CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge,
    which came to be allowed vide order dated 6th July, 2023. The learned
    Sessions Judge observed that the learned counsel for the accused
    Sethu @ Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf.
13. Being aggrieved, the accused Sethu @ Angrej approached the High
    Court by way of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677
    of 2024 which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of the
    High Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2024. While rejecting the bail
    application of the accused Sethu @ Angrej, the High Court passed
    strictures against the appellant herein observing that, he being a
    Judicial Officer, had passed the order granting bail to Sethu @ Angrej
    dated 19th December, 2022 in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier
    manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused.
14. Additionally, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge
    that the accused Sethu @ Angrej was the principal accused in the
    case, as he caused the lethal injury to the injured Pappu. The High
    Court observed that appellant-Judicial Officer, while deciding the
    bail application, omitted to consider the order dated 16th December,
    2022 and granted bail to the said accused ignoring the principles laid
    down by the High Court in the case of Jugal v. State of Rajasthan8,
    wherein it was mandated that the Presiding Officer granting bail to
    the accused is under an obligation to incorporate the criminal record


7   2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096.
8   2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691.
1226                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     of the applicant in a tabular form and that the judgment of the High
     Court in the case of Khet Singh (supra) was improperly applied
     while granting bail to the said accused.
15. The High Court concluded in the impugned order dated 3rd May,
    2024 that this act of the appellant-Judicial Officer tantamounted to
    indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and disobedience
    of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court. Observing so,
    it was directed that the copy of the impugned order dated 3rd May,
    2024 be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court
    for perusal.
16. Being aggrieved by the observations made and strictures passed
    against him, the appellant-Judicial Officer is before this Court by way
    of this appeal with special leave.
17. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
    counsel for the appellant-Judicial Officer and have gone through the
    impugned order.
18. Suffice it to say that the law is well-settled by a catena of decisions
    rendered by this Court that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from
    passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters
    on the judicial side. Reference in this regard may be made to in Re:
    ‘K’, A Judicial Officer9. In paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, this Court
    dealt with the validity and legality of strictures passed by the High
    Court against a Judicial Officer serving as a member of the district
    judiciary which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
            “15. In the case at hand we are concerned with the
            observations made by the High Court against a judicial
            officer who is a serving member of subordinate judiciary.
            Under the constitutional scheme control over the district
            courts and courts subordinate thereto has been vested in
            the High Courts. The control so vested is administrative,
            judicial and disciplinary. The role of High Court is also of
            a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate
            to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in
            cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the
            power should be so wielded as to have propensity



9   (2001) 3 SCC 54.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1227

                    Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan


           to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if
           committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon
           the error but not its repetition”. The power to control
           is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher’s
           cane; the members of subordinate judiciary look up to
           the High Court for the power to control to be exercised
           with parent-like care and affection. The exercise of
           statutory jurisdiction, appellate or revisional and the
           exercise of constitutional power to control and supervise
           the functioning of the district courts and courts subordinate
           thereto empowers the High Court to formulate an opinion
           and place it on record not only on the judicial working but
           also on the conduct of the judicial officers. The existence
           of power in higher echelons of judiciary to make
           observations even extending to criticism incorporated
           in judicial orders cannot be denied, however, the
           High Courts have to remember that criticisms and
           observations touching a subordinate incorporated
           judicial in officer judicial pronouncements have their
           own mischievous infirmities. Firstly, the judicial officer
           is condemned unheard which is violative of principles
           of natural justice. A member of subordinate judiciary
           himself dispensing justice should not be denied this
           minimal natural justice so as to shield against being
           condemned unheard. Secondly, the harm caused by
           such criticism or observation may be incapable of
           being undone. Such criticism of the judicial officer
           contained in a judgment, reportable or not, is a
           pronouncement in open and therefore becomes public.
           The same Judge who found himself persuaded, sitting
           on judicial side, to make observations guided by the
           facts of a single case against a Subordinate Judge
           may, sitting on administrative side and apprised of
           overall meritorious performance of the Subordinate
           Judge, may irretrievably regret his having made
           those observations on judicial side, the harming
           effect whereof even he himself cannot remove on
           administrative side. Thirdly, human nature being what
           it is, such criticism of a judicial officer contained in
           the judgment of a higher court gives the litigating
           party a sense of victory not only over his opponent
1228                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        but also over the Judge who had decided the case
        against him. This is subversive of judicial authority
        of the deciding Judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging
        of the observations by a judicial officer by filing an
        appeal or petition of his own reduces him to the status
        of a litigant arrayed as a party before the High Court
        or Supreme Court — a situation not very happy from
        the point of view of the functioning of the judicial
        system. May be for the purpose of pleading his cause
        he has to take the assistance of a legal practitioner
        and such legal practitioner may be one practising
        before him. Look at the embarrassment involved. And
        last but not the least, the possibility of a single or
        casual aberration of an otherwise honest, upright and
        righteous Judge being caught unawares in the net of
        adverse observations cannot be ruled out. Such an
        incident would have a seriously demoralising effect
        not only on him but also on his colleagues. If all this
        is avoidable, why should it not be avoided?
        16. We must not be understood as meaning that any
        conduct of a subordinate judicial officer unbecoming of him
        and demanding a rebuff should be simply overlooked. But
        there is an alternate safer and advisable course available to
        choose. The conduct of a judicial officer, unworthy of him,
        having come to the notice of a Judge of the High Court
        hearing a matter on the judicial side, the lis may be disposed
        of by pronouncing upon the merits thereof as found by
        him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement criticism
        of, or observations on the “conduct” of the subordinate
        judicial officer who had decided the case under scrutiny.
        Simultaneously, but separately, in office proceedings
        may be drawn up inviting attention of Hon’ble
        Chief Justice to the facts describing the conduct
        of the Subordinate Judge concerned by sending a
        confidential letter or note to the Chief Justice. It will
        thereafter be open to the Chief Justice to deal with
        the subordinate judicial officer either at his own level
        or through the Inspecting Judge or by placing the
        matter before the full court for its consideration. The
        action so taken would all be on the administrative
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               1229

                    Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan


             side. The Subordinate Judge concerned would have
             an opportunity of clarifying his position or putting
             forth the circumstances under which he acted. He
             would not be condemned unheard and if the decision
             be adverse to him, it being on administrative side, he
             would have some remedy available to him under the
             law. He would not be rendered remediless.
             17. The remarks made in a judicial order of the High
             Court against a member of subordinate judiciary even
             if expunged would not completely restitute and restore
             the harmed Judge from the loss of dignity and honour
             suffered by him. In Judges by David Pannick (Oxford
             University Press Publication, 1987) a wholesome practise
             finds a mention suggesting an appropriate course to be
             followed in such situations:
                   “Lord Hailsham explained that in a number of
                   cases, although I seldom told the complainant
                   that I had done so, I showed the complaint to
                   the Judge concerned. I thought it good for him
                   both to see what was being said about him from
                   the other side of the court, and how perhaps a
                   lapse of manners or a momentary impatience
                   could undermine confidence in his decision.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

19. The said judgment has been relied on by a 3-Judge bench of this
    Court in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors10 where this
    Court again implored that the Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy
    should refrain from commenting on the conduct and calib of judicial
    officers. Reference may be made to Paragraph 15 of Sonu Agnihotri
    (supra), reproduced hereinbelow:
             “15. The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy are invested
             with appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors
             committed by the courts that are judicially subordinate
             to it. The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227



10   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382
1230                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC
        to correct the errors committed by the courts which are
        judicially subordinate to it. We must hasten to add that
        no court can be called a “subordinate court”. Here,
        we refer to “subordinate” courts only in the context
        of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction.
        The superior courts exercising such powers can
        set aside erroneous orders and expunge uncalled
        and unwarranted observations. While doing so, the
        superior courts can legitimately criticise the orders
        passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate Courts
        by giving reasons. There can be criticism of the
        errors committed, in some cases, by using strong
        language. However, such observations must always
        be in the context of errors in the impugned orders.
        While doing so, the courts have to show restraint,
        and adverse comments on the personal conduct and
        calibre of the Judicial Officer should be avoided. There
        is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and
        criticising a Judicial Officer. The first part is permissible.
        The second category of criticism should best be avoided.
        The reasons are already explained by this Court in
        Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer. There are five reasons given
        in paragraph 15 of the decision why judicial officers should
        not be condemned unheard. As observed in the decision,
        the High Court Judges, after noticing improper conduct
        on the part of the Judicial Officer, can always invite
        the attention of the Chief Justice on the administrative
        side to such conduct. Whenever action is proposed
        against a judicial officer on the administrative side,
        he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his
        position. But if such personal adverse observations
        are made in a judgment, the Judicial Officer’s career
        gets adversely affected.
        16. The Judges are human beings. All human beings are
        prone to committing mistakes. To err is human. Almost all
        courts in our country are overburdened. In the year 2002,
        in the case of “All India Judges’ Association (3) and
        Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., this Court passed an
        order directing that within five years, an endeavour
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1231

                    Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan


             should be made to increase the judge-to-population
             ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million. However,
             till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio
             of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and
             litigation have substantially increased. The Judges
             have to work under stress. As stated earlier, every
             Judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to
             commit errors. In a given case, after writing several
             sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one
             judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise.
             As stated earlier, the higher court can always correct
             the error. However, while doing so, if strictures
             are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it
             causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from
             the embarrassment involved. We must remember that
             when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to
             making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or
             recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments
             must be avoided.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

20. Furthermore, in the present case, the fact remains that the strictures
    and/or the scathing observations were made by the learned Single
    Judge of the High Court to the detriment of the appellant-Judicial
    Officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing
    cause. In addition, thereto, we find that the entire foundation of the
    High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment in the case
    of Jugal (supra) which stands reversed by this Court in the case
    of Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan11 vide judgment dated 17th
    December, 2024.
21. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the strictures
    passed by the High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer were
    uncalled for and hence, the same are expunged. The impugned
    order is modified to that extent.
22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal
    antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications
    has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country.


11   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763.
1232                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be
     specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as
     below:
             “5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail
             presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state
             whether similar application has or has not been made
             to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result
             thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether
             he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not.
             If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application
             which does not contain this information shall be placed
             before the bench with the necessary information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the country should consider
    incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules
    and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the
    accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any
    other criminal case(s) previously registered.
24. It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this order shall be communicated
    to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that incorporation
    of a similar Rule in the respective Rules can be considered, if such
    provision does not exist from earlier.
25. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain