The Supreme Court on Monday quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s critical observations against the special court judge, saying the “hasty conclusion” accusing the judge of “intellectual dishonesty” was “wholly unwarranted”.
The special court, which deals with Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act cases, has convicted an accused in a sexual assault case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the decision and made critical remarks against the special judge who showed “a sign of intellectual dishonesty”.
The Supreme Court said the special judge and public prosecutor committed a “gross lapse” in unfairly oppressing the accused and putting him behind bars for more than three years by overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult.
On Monday, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi heard an appeal filed by the special judge of the lower court against the Supreme Court’s December 17, 2025 order against which he had made negative statements.
A separate appeal was also filed by the Public Prosecutor, where a show cause notice seeking explanation was issued against him as well as against the Special Judge.
“We are convinced that the observations of the Supreme Court are completely unwarranted because, out of context, they are inconsistent with Section 94 (method of determining age) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015… The impugned judgment in relation to the appellants (judge and public prosecutor) is set aside,” the order said.
The court said the “hasty conclusion” accusing the judge of “intellectual dishonesty” was “completely unjustified.”
“We propose to issue a showcause notice to the Special Judge concerned as well as the Public Prosecutor for such grievous wrongdoing in wronging the accused and putting him behind bars for more than three years, overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult and hence conviction cannot be issued,” the Supreme Court said while acquitting the accused.
The Supreme Court also said: “This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Special Judge. The Registry is requested to issue a showcause notice to the Special Judge concerned and the Public Prosecutor, seeking their explanation.”
