In Rare Move, MP High Court Directs SLP to Supreme Court Against Its Own Judge's 'Chilling' Order

JABALPUR – In an exceptional and significant act of institutional self-correction, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of an order passed by one of its own single judges, directing its administration to challenge the "damning and disparaging" remarks before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench characterized the single judge's directions, which included an inquiry into a trial judge's "ulterior motives," as "chilling" and a threat to the independence of the subordinate judiciary.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal, invoked its constitutional role as the "guardian of the District Judiciary" to intervene, highlighting a critical tension between judicial accountability and the appropriate exercise of supervisory powers.

Background: A Bail Hearing Turns into an Inquiry

The controversy stems from a September 12 order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta while hearing a bail application for Roop Singh Parihar, an accused in a corruption case involving the alleged embezzlement of over ₹5 crores of public funds. The trial court, presided over by First Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vivek Sharma of Shivpuri, had discharged Parihar of several serious offences, including charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 468 of the IPC, framing a charge only for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.

While denying bail, Justice Gupta's order went significantly beyond the scope of the bail proceedings. He made strong adverse observations against ASJ Sharma, personally naming him in the order. Justice Gupta opined that the discharge was an attempt to give the accused an "undue advantage" to secure bail and suggested the trial judge acted with an "ulterior motive."

Most notably, Justice Gupta directed the High Court's Principal Registrar (Vigilance) to seek permission from the Chief Justice to conduct an inquiry and initiate disciplinary action against ASJ Sharma for his judicial order.

The Division Bench's 'Chilling' Assessment

Taking strong exception to these remarks, the Division Bench of Justice Sreedharan and Justice Mittal initiated suo motu proceedings. In a detailed order passed on September 22, the Bench described the single judge's direction as "chilling," noting that it was "based on speculation and uncalled for."

The Bench identified two primary issues with the single judge's order: 1. Exceeding Bail Jurisdiction: The comments on the merits of the discharge order were made without any revision petition challenging it being before the court. The Bench stated, "The observations... were in excess of the exercise of bail jurisdiction as the Ld. Single Bench was not in seisin of any revision preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court." 2. Violation of Supreme Court Precedent: The personal and disparaging nature of the remarks violated a consistent line of Supreme Court jurisprudence that cautions higher courts against besmirching the reputation of trial court judges, especially without affording them an opportunity to be heard.

The Division Bench emphasized the crucial distinction between judicial critique and personal attack, referencing the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar .

"There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer," the Bench quoted, adding, "This unfortunately was absolutely uncalled for and a violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s consistent direction to the High Court to desist from such observations in judicial orders."

The High Court as a 'Sentinel' for the District Judiciary

The core of the Division Bench's reasoning rested on its constitutional role under Articles 227 and 235. The Bench articulated that the High Court's power of superintendence is not merely corrective but also protective.

"This Court under article 227 and 235, exercises the power of superintendence over the District Judiciary. In that capacity, it has to not only correct the errors on the part of the District Judiciary, but has to also discharge its function as the guardian of the District Judiciary," the order stated.

The Bench asserted that this guardianship extends to protecting subordinate judges from the High Court's own excesses. It powerfully concluded this point by stating:

"The High Court becomes the sentinel protecting the District Judiciary from its (High Court’s) excesses and ensure that the independence and fearlessness of the District Judiciary is not emasculated."

A Novel Procedural Pathway to Correction

Recognizing the constraints of judicial discipline, the Division Bench acknowledged that it could not directly review or set aside the order of a coordinate bench. Instead of attempting to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, which it deemed inappropriate in this context, the Bench forged a unique remedy.

It directed the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court within ten days to challenge Justice Gupta's order. This directive effectively positions the High Court as an institutional petitioner seeking correction of an error originating from within its own ranks.

The Bench clarified that its order was not adversarial in nature and therefore did not require issuing notice to any party, as "there is no adversity suffered by the High Court on account of this order."

Legal Implications and Future Ramifications

This case presents a landmark moment in Indian judicial administration. The suo motu action and the subsequent direction for an SLP serve several critical functions: * Reinforcing Judicial Independence: It sends a strong message that the independence of subordinate judges to pass orders without fear of unwarranted personal censure from higher courts is paramount. * Upholding Judicial Propriety: It underscores the importance of judicial restraint and adherence to jurisdictional boundaries, even for constitutional courts. * Demonstrating Institutional Accountability: The High Court's willingness to publicly acknowledge and seek correction for a perceived error from one of its own Benches is a powerful demonstration of accountability.

The matter is now slated for further hearing on October 6, 2025, to confirm compliance with the direction to file the SLP. The legal community will be watching closely as this case travels to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say on the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the protection of the subordinate judiciary.