India
Supreme Court to Hear Plea for Removal of Judge Facing Rape Charges from POCSO Court
A bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, has issued notice on a petition filed by a rape survivor. The petition seeks the removal of Additional District Judge Ashok Bhartendu from his post as presiding officer of a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Shamli’s Kairana, after Bhartendu was charged with rape.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the survivor’s earlier plea to restrain Bhartendu from discharging judicial duties. The Court said that the decision on whether Bhartendu should be divested of judicial work should ideally be taken by the High Court, and that it would not pass an order affecting the officer’s rights without material on the status of the vigilance inquiry against him.
The bench told the survivor’s counsel, Rakesh Kumar Singh, that it could ask the High Court to expedite the pending vigilance inquiry, while allowing trial proceedings to continue in accordance with law. The Court also set December 11 as the next hearing date.
The petition challenges the High Court’s August 17 order that dismissed the survivor’s writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Bhartendu’s continuance in office. The High Court had earlier noted that Bhartendu had been directed on October 21, 2024, to join the inquiry into the FIR registered against him in Delhi, and that the vigilance bureau was exempt from the Right to Information Act.
The FIR, registered on December 8, 2022, at Delhi’s Mayur Vihar Phase‑I police station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, alleges rape on the false promise of marriage. Bhartendu challenged the FIR before the Delhi High Court, which granted him interim protection from arrest in March 2023. The Delhi High Court later clarified that there was no stay on the criminal proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed after the chargesheet was filed.
The survivor argues that allowing a judicial officer facing rape prosecution to continue presiding over a POCSO court raises serious concerns and warrants intervention by the High Court administration.