Rajasthan High Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against Police Officers, Applies Parity Principle to Non-Petitioner

Introduction

In a significant ruling emphasizing the principles of natural justice and parity, the Rajasthan High Court has expunged stigmatizing remarks made by a trial court against a police officer in an NDPS case, extending the same relief to another officer who did not even file a petition for redress. The bench, comprising Justice Anil Kumar Upman, set aside the adverse observations and directions for disciplinary and legal action against petitioner Vimal Singh, an Additional Superintendent of Police, and Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi, holding that the trial court's failure to provide an opportunity of hearing violated fundamental fairness. This decision, delivered in Vimal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding public servants' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when judicial comments could jeopardize careers. The case arose from an acquittal in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act prosecution, where the trial court, while freeing the accused, criticized the investigating officers for alleged irregularities.

The ruling serves as a caution to lower courts against passing castigating remarks without due process, reinforcing that such actions must align with established precedents like Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan . For legal professionals, this judgment highlights the High Court's proactive stance in ensuring equitable relief, even absent a direct challenge, to prevent discrimination among similarly situated individuals.

Case Background

The origins of this petition trace back to Sessions Case No. 63/2018 before the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar, titled State of Rajasthan v. Tejraj @ Teju @ Tejraj Nagar & Ors. . The case involved allegations under the NDPS Act against respondents Tejraj alias Teju alias Tejraj Nagar, Smt. Rukmani Bai, and Kanhaiyalal, residents of Bukhari, P.S. Sarola Kalan, District Jhalawar. Petitioner Vimal Singh was the investigating officer, posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar, at the time, while Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi was another key figure in the proceedings, likely involved in the medical or forensic aspects of the investigation.

On April 29, 2023, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding insufficient evidence to sustain the charges. However, in paragraph 86 of its judgment, the court made severe adverse remarks against Singh and Bishnoi, accusing them of committing "irregularities in a seriously irresponsible manner" in the discharge of their official duties as public servants. The trial judge directed the District Magistrate and Police Inspector General to initiate separate disciplinary and legal proceedings under Order 35 Rule 6 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018, and to inform the court of the actions taken.

Aggrieved by these observations, which were passed without any notice or hearing to the officers, Vimal Singh filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4531/2023 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged the judgment dated April 29, 2023, specifically the portions containing the castigating remarks and directions for proceedings. Notably, Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi did not file a similar petition, yet the High Court addressed his situation suo motu, invoking the principle of parity.

The timeline is relatively recent: the trial court's order was from 2023, and the High Court's decision was pronounced on December 15, 2025, with the certified copy uploaded in January 2026. This case exemplifies the tensions in NDPS prosecutions, where investigative lapses can lead to acquittals but also expose officers to judicial scrutiny, often without procedural safeguards.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, led by Mr. Anurag Sharma along with Mr. Akshat Sharma and Mr. Anoop Meena, mounted a robust challenge centered on procedural fairness. They argued that the trial court's adverse remarks in paragraph 86 were made ex parte, without affording Vimal Singh—or Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi—an opportunity to be heard. This, they contended, constituted a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, as enshrined in judicial precedents. The counsel emphasized that such remarks, labeling the officers' actions as "seriously irresponsible," carried severe consequences for their careers, including potential disciplinary actions and reputational damage. They urged the High Court to expunge these observations and set aside the directions for proceedings, arguing that the trial court overstepped its bounds in a criminal acquittal by venturing into administrative censure without evidence or hearing.

On the respondents' side, represented by Public Prosecutor Mr. M.S. Shekhawat for the State of Rajasthan, the arguments were more defensive and limited in scope, as the focus was on the acquittal rather than the remarks. The state did not vigorously contest the petition on the merits of the remarks but implicitly relied on the trial court's findings of investigative irregularities. However, no specific counter-affidavits or detailed submissions challenging the natural justice claim were highlighted in the proceedings. The respondents maintained that the trial court's observations were incidental to the acquittal and aimed at upholding accountability in public service, particularly in sensitive NDPS cases where procedural lapses undermine prosecutions. They did not address the parity issue directly, as Dr. Bishnoi was not a party, but the state acknowledged the need for independent disciplinary review.

Key factual points raised by the petitioner included the absence of any prior notice during the trial, the non-adversarial nature of the remarks (issued post-acquittal without summoning the officers), and the potential for these comments to trigger automatic proceedings under the 2018 Rules. Legally, the petitioner invoked the doctrine of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), arguing that the trial court's actions transformed a judicial order into an administrative indictment, warranting intervention under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing infirm portions. The respondents countered by noting the public interest in scrutinizing police conduct in drug-related cases, where lapses could enable narcotic trafficking, but they could not refute the lack of hearing.

Legal Analysis

The Rajasthan High Court's reasoning was meticulously grounded in constitutional and precedential law, prioritizing natural justice while extending relief through the lens of parity. Justice Upman began by scrutinizing the trial court's judgment, confirming that no opportunity of hearing was extended to the officers before the adverse remarks. He drew directly from the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596, which mandates that before a court passes castigating remarks—especially those with career-impacting consequences—the affected person must be given a chance to respond. The apex court had cautioned that failure to do so renders such remarks violative of natural justice principles, a basic facet of fair procedure under Article 21.

The analysis deepened with the novel issue of extending relief to Dr. Bishnoi, who had not petitioned the court. Here, the High Court invoked the principle of parity, observing that both officers stood on equal footing as victims of the same procedural lapse. Justice Upman referenced Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023 AIR SC 4444), where the Supreme Court recalled a dismissal to grant parity to a co-accused, emphasizing that unequal treatment for identical circumstances breaches Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and liberty). This precedent, in turn, drew from Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 101, which decried the "travesty of justice" in disparate penalties for the same offense.

The court distinguished between judicial observations in ongoing trials (where parties are present) and post-acquittal strictures, which resemble administrative orders requiring due process. It clarified that while trial courts may note investigative flaws, directing disciplinary action without hearing encroaches on executive functions and risks bias. No specific NDPS sections were central here, but the context highlighted how stringent drug laws amplify scrutiny on officers, necessitating safeguards. The ruling applied Article 21 broadly, interpreting "personal liberty" to include protection from arbitrary judicial stigma affecting professional lives.

This analysis integrates insights from secondary sources, such as LiveLaw reports, which noted the court's observation: "A criminal court must decide like cases alike to avoid any form of discrimination." It reinforces that constitutional courts must proactively uphold equity, even absent petitions, to prevent manifest injustice.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations that encapsulate the court's commitment to fairness. Key excerpts include:

• On the violation of natural justice: "Before any castigating remarks are made by the court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensure serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should be given an opportunity of hearing in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice." (Referencing Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan )

• Regarding parity for the non-petitioner: "Just because he has not raised a petition to get the castigating remarks expunged, like that presented by the current petitioner, it cannot be said that the castigating remarks passed by the learned Court specifically against him are correct. Following the principle of parity, when a court finds that a specific action suffers from a definitive legal infirmity, the benefit extended to one party must be extended to others similarly situated."

• On the constitutional duty: "This Court being a Constitutional Court has to keep in mind the Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 and must ensure that this right is not violated, by not providing the same relief to this other individual. The principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice demand that such similarly placed individual must also be granted the same relief, notwithstanding the absence of a separate challenge."

• Caution to courts: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned the Courts from passing castigating remarks against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned."

• Final procedural note: "Perusal of the record would reveal that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and other individual before making castigating remarks vide impugned judgment and therefore... the impugned order... to the extent of making castigating remarks against the petitioner and another individual namely Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi and issuing direction therein, to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings against them is set-aside."

These quotes, drawn verbatim from the judgment, illuminate the court's balanced approach, blending precedent with equity.

Court's Decision

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition on December 15, 2025, setting aside the trial court's order dated April 29, 2023, insofar as it contained adverse remarks against Vimal Singh and Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi, and the directions to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings under Order 35 Rule 6 of the 2018 Rules. The bench explicitly extended the expungement to Bishnoi, applying the parity principle to avert discrimination.

Practically, this means the stigmatizing observations are erased from the record, shielding the officers from immediate repercussions like suspensions or inquiries based solely on the trial court's comments. However, the court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority—likely the Director General of Police, Rajasthan—to examine the matter independently, without influence from the trial observations, while adhering to natural justice principles. Stay applications and pending matters were disposed of accordingly.

The implications are profound for future cases. This ruling deters trial courts from issuing ex parte censures, particularly in acquittals under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, where investigative critiques are common. It empowers High Courts to invoke parity proactively, ensuring Article 21 protections extend to unrepresented but similarly affected parties, potentially influencing appeals in administrative law and service jurisprudence. For public servants, especially in law enforcement, it offers a safeguard against judicial overreach, promoting accountability through fair process rather than unilateral stigma.

In the broader justice system, the decision reinforces the Supreme Court's warnings against loose remarks, fostering judicial discipline. Legal practitioners may see increased petitions under Section 482 CrPC to expunge such comments, while disciplinary bodies must now prioritize independent probes. Ultimately, this judgment advances a more equitable framework, where parity is not optional but imperative to uphold constitutional ethos.