The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on Monday took a serious step in safeguarding judicial decorum after noticing certain sharp remarks made by a single bench at Gwalior against a district judge. Acting on its own motion, the division bench expressed concern that such observations could tarnish the dignity of judicial officers and shake public confidence in the system.
Background
The controversy began with two bail applications - one filed by Roop Singh Parihar and the other by Imratlal arising from the same corruption case in Shivpuri district. Both were rejected by the single bench earlier this month. While the dismissal of bail itself was not the issue, paragraph 12 of those orders became the flashpoint.
The bench had not only criticized the trial court's decision to frame charges under a lesser section but also directly named the Additional Sessions Judge, alleging an "ulterior motive" in discharging serious charges like cheating and forgery.
According to case records, Parihar, a computer operator, was accused of diverting land acquisition compensation funds into personal accounts. The trial court had framed charges under criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), but not under the more severe provisions of cheating and forgery. This framing of charges led to pointed criticism from the single bench, which also directed an inquiry into the conduct of the trial judge.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar (2024), the bench highlighted that while appellate courts can criticize erroneous orders, they must avoid personal comments about judicial officers.
"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 Supreme Court had cautioned.
The Jabalpur bench underlined that higher courts are guardians of judicial independence at the district level. It stressed that
"the High Court becomes the sentinel protecting the District Judiciary from its own excesses," adding that judges at every level deserve protection from undue aspersions that may compromise their fearlessness.
Given the constraints of jurisdiction, the division bench noted that it could not interfere directly with the Gwalior orders. However, exercising its supervisory role under Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution, the court directed that a Special Leave Petition be filed before the Supreme Court within ten days.
"This Court directs the respondent to forthwith file a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the order stated, clarifying that no notice would be issued to the High Court itself since the matter was being pursued suo motu, without adversarial intent.
The case has been listed for further proceedings on October 6, 2025, keeping the issue alive until the apex court has a chance to weigh in.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar General
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 38432 of 2025