The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed strictures passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Samba, against an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), holding that uncalled-for remarks cannot be made without affording the officer an opportunity to explain.
The controversy stemmed from a JJB order dated September 8, 2025, where the Board criticized the APP for her absence during the hearing of a bail plea and recommended departmental action. However, records revealed that on the same day she was engaged in recording prosecution evidence before another court until court hours concluded.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the JJB neither verified the reasons for her absence nor gave her a chance to explain. Citing State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 12 SCC 689 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary (2019) 11 SCC 575, the Court reiterated that adverse remarks should be made only when indispensable for deciding a case and after hearing the concerned individual, as such comments can seriously affect careers.
The Court further emphasized that minor lapses or inability to argue a matter do not warrant disparaging remarks, particularly where no prejudice is caused to the accused.
Allowing the petition, the Court ordered expunction of the remarks and restrained the Deputy Director of Prosecution from taking further action.
Appearances
Petitioners: Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate
Respondent: NA
