Supreme Court Examines Plea Against Judge’s Posting In POCSO Court Amid Rape Prosecution

On Monday, the Supreme Court said it would hear a rape survivor’s plea to remove a judicial officer facing rape prosecution from a POCSO court. The bench also indicated that the Allahabad High Court may be asked to hasten the pending vigilance inquiry against him.

The plea takes aim at the Allahabad High Court’s August 17 order, which declined to stop the officer from carrying on with judicial duties, Hindustan Times reported. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on the petition.

The plea is against additional district judge Ashok Bhartendu, who is presiding over the POCSO court in Shamli’s Kairana while facing rape prosecution. The bench said the question of whether Bhartendu should continue with judicial work would ideally be for the high court to decide administratively. It also said that, without material on record about the stage of the vigilance inquiry, it may ask the Allahabad High Court to take the inquiry to its conclusion.

High Court Ruling

The survivor’s writ petition had sought a writ of quo warranto against Bhartendu’s continuance in office. In its August 17 ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed her plea to restrain him from discharging judicial duties as presiding officer of the POCSO court.

A bench of justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh heard that matter. The high court held that there was a presumption that the administration knew what it was doing because the officer continued to discharge his duties.

It also held that the survivor had not shown any allegation on record concerning the discharge of his judicial duties. “So far as petitioner's complaint is concerned, the law will take its course,” the High Court said while dismissing the petition.

Inquiry And FIR

The record before the high court included a communication issued by its central public information officer on February 6. It was sent in response to the survivor’s RTI application and was reproduced in the August 17 order.

That communication disclosed that the high court had directed Bhartendu on October 21, 2024, to join the inquiry into the FIR registered against him in Delhi. It also directed the investigating officer to periodically inform the high court about the progress of the investigation.

The communication further informed the applicant that the high court’s vigilance bureau was exempt from the purview of the Right to Information Act. It therefore declined to disclose further details of the inquiry.

The FIR was registered on December 8, 2022, at Delhi’s Mayur Vihar Phase-I police station. It invoked Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and alleged rape on the false promise of marriage.

Delhi Court Proceedings

Bhartendu moved the Delhi High Court against the FIR. In March 2023, the court gave him interim protection from arrest and said, at first glance, the matter seemed to involve a broken promise to marry rather than a lie from the start.

That protection did not halt the case. The Delhi High Court later clarified that there was no stay on the criminal proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law after the chargesheet was filed.

A Delhi district court thereafter took cognisance of the offences against Bhartendu.

Survivor’s Core Argument

The survivor argued before the Supreme Court that a judicial officer facing prosecution for rape should not continue to preside over a sensitive special court. The court deals with sexual offences, including those involving children.

During the hearing, her counsel Rakesh Kumar Singh pressed for Bhartendu to be relieved of judicial responsibilities. The bench told him, “We can ask the high court to take appropriate steps so that the inquiry is taken to its logical end. Meanwhile, you can proceed with the trial proceedings in accordance with law.”

When Singh argued that Bhartendu should not continue in the posting, the bench responded, “We understand it is a sensitive posting. We will consider your arguments too.” It also observed, “There was a vigilance inquiry but there is nothing placed on record with regard to the stage at which such an inquiry is pending. We can ask the high court to do the needful,” and fixed December 11 as the next date of hearing.