Supreme Court: Seeks Responses On Allahabad HC ADJ Ashok Bhartendu Removal

• The Supreme Court has requested responses from the Allahabad High Court and ADJ Ashok Bhartendu regarding a petition for his removal.
• A rape survivor filed the petition, seeking Bhartendu's removal as a special POCSO judge due to a pending rape case against him in Delhi.
• The Court's bench, including CJI Surya Kant, will also review the progress of a vigilance complaint lodged against Bhartendu.
• The petitioner's advocate highlighted the contradiction of a judge facing rape charges presiding over Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act cases.
• The Supreme Court was urged to exercise its constitutional powers of superintendence over the subordinate judiciary, citing stalled administrative action.

This development underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to judicial accountability and its willingness to intervene in administrative matters concerning the fitness of judicial officers, particularly when serious allegations of misconduct arise.

The Supreme Court on Monday initiated proceedings by requesting responses from both the Allahabad High Court administration and Additional District Judge (ADJ) Ashok Bhartendu. This action stems from a petition filed by a rape survivor who is seeking the removal of Bhartendu from his position as a special judge presiding over cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The core of the petitioner's request for Bhartendu's removal is a pending rape case against him in Delhi. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, is overseeing this matter. In addition to seeking responses on the removal petition, the bench also indicated its intention to examine the progress of a vigilance complaint that has been lodged against ADJ Ashok Bhartendu.

During the hearing, advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh, representing the rape survivor, underscored the profound irony of the situation. He highlighted that a judicial officer tasked with adjudicating sensitive cases under the POCSO Act was himself facing criminal proceedings for rape. Singh articulated the petitioner's concern, stating that despite a higher judicial officer being an accused with cognizance already taken in the criminal matter, he continued to serve as a POCSO judge. He further noted that while Bhartendu's petition to quash the criminal proceedings was pending, no stay had been granted on those proceedings.

Initially, the Supreme Court bench appeared disinclined to immediately relieve Bhartendu of his duties, suggesting that the criminal case should proceed. However, Singh pressed the Court to invoke its constitutional powers of superintendence over the subordinate judiciary. He emphasized that administrative action against the judge had stalled, making the Supreme Court's intervention crucial. Singh also referenced a precedent set by a Constitution Bench regarding the exercise of such superintendence powers, reinforcing the legal basis for the Court's potential administrative oversight.

This development underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to judicial accountability and its willingness to intervene in administrative matters concerning the fitness of judicial officers, particularly when serious allegations of misconduct arise. The decision to not only seek responses but also to scrutinize the progress of a vigilance complaint signals a robust approach to maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court's active involvement in this case sends a clear message regarding the standards expected of judges, especially those handling vulnerable populations under laws like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It highlights that the judiciary's administrative arm is subject to high-level oversight when questions of ethical conduct and criminal charges impact a judge's ability to perform their duties impartially and credibly.

This development signals the Supreme Court's active oversight of judicial conduct and accountability, particularly when serious criminal allegations are made against presiding judges. Lawyers should note this precedent regarding the Court's willingness to intervene in administrative matters concerning judicial fitness, which could be relevant when challenging judicial impartiality or in cases involving disciplinary actions against judicial officers.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source.