The High Court had directed the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to provide training to the judge in judgment writing. The judge then moved the Supreme Court in appeal.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the strictures and adverse observations made by Rajasthan High Court against a judge of a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Sonika Purohit v. State of Rajasthan].
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an appeal challenging a Rajasthan High Court single-judge’s order of May 2025 which said that the special judge had neglected her duty and had relied on a cut, copy, paste method while writing a judgment.
The High Court had further suggested the judgment was prepared by a stenographer rather than the judge herself and had therefore, directed Rajasthan Judicial Academy to impart training to judge in judgment writing.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the State on the appeal filed by the concerned judge and also stayed the operation of the High Court order.
“Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, further action pursuant to the directions issued in the order impugned shall remain stayed,” the Supreme Court ordered.
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in Jaisalmer involving offences under the POCSO Act. Two separate trials were conducted on the basis of the same FIR and overlapping evidence — one against an adult accused and another against a juvenile. Both trials culminated in convictions by the trial court.
When the conviction of the juvenile was challenged before the High Court in a criminal appeal with a suspension of sentence application, the judgment of the trial court came under close scrutiny. The High Court found that large portions of the reasoning in the judgment against the juvenile were identical to the passages appearing in the judgment against the co-accused.
The High Court observed that the trial judge had effectively shirked judicial responsibility and had resorted to a “cut, copy, paste methodology.” It went so far as to record that the judgment appeared to have been prepared not by the judge but by a stenographer.
Hence, it directed the Rajasthan Judicial Academy to provide training to the officer in judgment writing and further ordered that these observations be placed in the judge’s annual confidential report after seeking her response.
Aggrieved by the order, the judge moved the Supreme Court.
She argued that the adverse remarks were unduly harsh as they arose only from inadvertent clerical errors which had no impact on the substance of the judgment.
It was pointed out that even the High Court, while refusing suspension of sentence, did not find any illegality on merits and upheld the conviction.
The petition acknowledged that minor clerical errors had inadvertently crept into the judgment, such as an incorrect serial number of a prosecution witness, though the contents and substance of the testimony were accurately recorded.
It was submitted that such lapses were not substantive but purely clerical in nature and could have been rectified by the trial court under Section 362 CrPC if brought to the petitioner’s notice.
