The Supreme Court on Monday expunged critical observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court against a special trial court judge, saying the “hasty conclusion” accusing the judge of “intellectual dishonesty” was “totally unwarranted”.
The special court, dealing with Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, had convicted an accused in a sexual assault case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had reversed the decision and made critical observations against the special judge that he exhibited a “sign of intellectual dishonesty”.
The high court had said that the special judge and the public prosecutor committed a “major lapse” in doing injustice to the accused and putting him behind bars for over three years by overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult.
On Monday, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing an appeal by the special judge of the trial court against the December 17, 2025, order of the high court which made the adverse remarks against him.
A separate appeal was also filed by the public prosecutor, as a show cause notice seeking an explanation was issued against him as well as the special judge.
“We are satisfied that observations of the high court are totally uncalled for, out of context, being contrary to section 94 (method of determining age) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015…Impugned judgment so far as it pertains to the appellants (judge and prosecutor) is set aside,” the CJI said in the order.
The bench said the “hasty conclusion” accusing the judge of “intellectual dishonesty” was “totally unwarranted”.
While acquitting the accused, the high court had said, “We propose to issue a show cause notice to the concerned special judge as well as the public prosecutor for such a major lapse in doing injustice to the accused and putting him behind bars for over three years, overlooking the fact that victim was a consenting adult, therefore, conviction could not have been made.”
“This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the special judge. Registry is requested to issue a show cause notice to the concerned special judge and the public prosecutor, calling for their explanation” the high court had also said.
