It is not permissible to add the Judge who has decided the case as party respondent while challenging order passed by him

1. These Appeals take exception to the order passed by

Special Court under the Provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Atrocities Act”), by

impleading the Judge who passed the order impugned as

Respondent No.2. Following chart would indicate the orders

impugned in these Appeals:

Appeal Nos. Date of order Order in challenge

754 of 2025 15.07.2025 C.P./Cri. M.A. No. 76 of 2025

987 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025

985 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025

986 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025

988 of 2025 17.05.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 46 of 2025

1007 of 2025 05.07.2025 Special Case No. 560 of 2019

1047 of 2025 19.07.2025 Cri. M.A. No. 93 of 2017

2. At this stage, this Court is not going into the merits of

the Appeal and correctness or otherwise of the orders

impugned. The present order is restricted to the issue as to

“whether the learned Judge who passed the orders impugned

can be joined as a party Respondent to the present Appeal”.

3. Essentially, the Appellant claims in these Appeals that, in

view of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the

Judges Protection Act, 1985, it is permissible to add the

Special Judge as a Respondent to the present Appeal. It is

claimed that the learned Judge acted against the directions of

law and refused to perform duty entrusted on Special Judge

under the Atrocities Act and the Rules. It is also claimed that

the Judge passed the orders impugned without hearing

Complainant and his Advocate, which is contrary to the

provisions of Section 15A(5) of the Atrocities Act. It is alleged

that the Judge observed a practice of untouchability, which is

abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution of India. With

these averments, following prayers were made in the Appeal,

with change in the date of impugned orders and number of

proceedings, which read thus:

“(a) The Hon’ble High Court kindly be quash and setaside

the order passed by Special Court Kalyan on

17.5.2025 on Exh-1 in Cri.M.A. 46 of 2017, in the

interest of justice please.

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present

appeal, the implementation of order dated 17.5.2025

in Cri. MA 46 of 2017 kindly be stayed in the interest

of justice please.

(c) The interim relief under prayer clause (b) above

kindly granted – ex-parte, being violation of principle

of natural justice & law laid down by Hon’ble Apex

court in Hariram Bhambhi case, uphold rights of

victim to hear u/s 15A (5) of POA Act, in the interest

of justice please.

(d) The Hon’ble High Court kindly be called for

records and proceedings of Cri.M.A. 46 of 2017 from

Special Court & DJ-5 & ASJ Kalyan u/s 15A (4) of the

POA Act, in the interest of justice please.

(e) The Hon’ble High Court kindly restrains

respondents No. 1 and 2 u/s 15A (8) (c) of POA Act

under original jurisdiction of the court, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, since respondents

continuously acting against special provisions of

SC/ST POA Act and PCR Act and damaging / affecting

administration of justice hence necessary to prevent

copying of offence, in the interest of justice please.

(f) Any other and further order as Hon’ble High

Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts

and circumstances of the case may also be passed for

complete justice please.”

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant made oral

submissions so also filed written notes under the caption “lists

of points to be argued” in support of his contentions. It is his

main submission, amongst others, that, in view of the

provisions of Section 3(2) of the Judge Protection Act, it is

permissible for the Appellant to join the Judge who has passed

the order impugned, as a Respondent. It is his contention that

since the learned Judge has refused to monitor the

investigation and disposed of the proceedings before him, this

amounts to not following the mandate of Section 156(3) of

the Cr.P.C. It is his submission that the protection under the

provisions of the Judges Protection Act would not be available

for Respondent No.2 and since there is non-compliance with

mandatory provisions of the Act, he deserves an action as

contemplated by the provisions of the Atrocities Act as well as

contempt of Courts Act. It is his further submission that it was

mandatory on the part of the learned Judge to hear the

victim, i.e. the Appellant herein, before passing the order

impugned, as the same has not been done, Appeals can be

maintained against him. He placed reliance on following

1) Priti Agarwalla And Others Vs. The State Of GNCT Of

Delhi And Others1.

2) M. Subramaniam And Another Vs. S. Janaki And

Another2.

3) Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And Others3.

4) K. N. Shukla Vs. Navnit Lal Manilal Bhat And Anr4.

5) The State of GNCT of Delhi And Others Vs. Praveen

Kumar @ Prashant5.

5. It is made clear, at the outset that the correctness and

otherwise of the impugned orders in these Appeals are not

gone into at this stage; the same shall be decided after

hearing the Appellant and the necessary party Respondent. At

this stage, the only question arises as to whether a Judge can

be joined as a party Respondent to an Appeal.

1 Criminal Appeal No (S). 348 of 2021 of Supreme Court.

2 Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 of Supreme Court

3 AIR 2008 SC 907

4 1967 AIR 1331

5 Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2021

6. It is pertinent to note that the procedural laws as well as

substantial laws applicable to civil or criminal proceeding do

not provide for the joining of a Judge as a party Respondent,

who has passed any order, when an order passed by him/her

is under challenge in an Appeal. In a Civil Appeal, the party to

the original proceedings or who is likely to be affected by

passing of the order can become party and not otherwise. In a

Criminal Appeal, the accused, the victim and the State would

only be relevant parties. Under the provisions of Atrocities

Act, in view of Section 15A (5), the victim would be a

necessary party to an Appeal filed under Section 14A, as the

victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any

proceeding under the Act. Similarly, in view of the Judgment

of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Malage

vs State of Maharashtra6, the victim of an offence under the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act requires to be

heard. Thus, except for the categories of persons mentioned

above, no other persons can become party to an Appeal.

6 PIL NO.50 OF 2021

Moreover, there is absence of any provision of law, substantial

or procedural, permitting the joining of the judicial officer

who has passed order impugned as a party Respondent, such

judicial officer cannot be joined / made as a party Respondent

to an Appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks to place reliance

on section 3 of Judges Protection Act to argue that in the view

of the said provisions, a judge can be joined as a party

respondent to present Appeal. It would be relevant to take

note of said provision which reads thus:

“3. Additional protection to Judges.- (1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

for the time being in force and subject to the

provisions of sub-section(2), no court shall entertain

or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against

any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or

word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in

the course of, acting or purporting to act in the

discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or

affect in any manner the power of the Central

Government or the State Government or the Supreme

Court of India or any High Court or any other

authority under any law for the time being in force to

take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or

departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any

person who is or was a Judge.”

A bare perusal of section 3(2) indicates that reliance placed

upon the same by the Appellant is wholly misplaced. The said

provision enables the Central Government, Supreme Court or

High Court to take action by way of civil, criminal or

departmental proceedings against a judge.

On the contrary, subsection (1) creates a complete embargo

on court in entertaining or continuing any civil or criminal

proceedings against any person, who has done any act, thing

or word spoken, when acting or purporting to act in discharge

of his official or judicial duty or function. Thus, even a

purported act in discharge of duty or function of a judge, is

exempted from civil or criminal proceedings.

8. The reference made to provision of section 4 of the

Atrocities Act is also irrelevant for deciding the issue in hand.

The said provision in no way would justify joining a judge as

party to an Appeal challenging order passed by him.

9. Apart from the fact that there is no legal provision

which supports joining/adding of the judicial officer as a party

Respondent in an Appeal, it would be necessary to foresee

consequences of permitting such addition. First of all, judicial

officer who passes any order in exercise of his judicial powers

is not required to justify the same in an Appeal. Judges are

not expected to follow their orders and provide justification

for passing of the same. It cannot be ignored that any order

passed by the Judge is bound to be against one party or other.

In such circumstances, at least one side will have grievance

against the Judge. The remedy however for such aggrieved

party would be to prefer an Appeal against such order before

the Appellate forum and not to prosecute Judge in an Appeal.

In such Appeal, on judicial side, Appellate Court is expected to

see as to whether the order impugned is justified and if it is

so, it can be maintained. In case order is not in accordance

with law, the same can be set aside. But, in no circumstances a

Judge can be called upon to justify merits of his order in

Appeal.

10. Permitting joining of a judicial officer as a party

Respondent to an Appeal will have serious and drastic

consequences on the entire judicial system. Needless to say

that if a Judge is made as a party, he will have to defend his

own order before the Appellate Court. Neither State nor

administration of the Court can do so on his behalf. Thus, not

only the Judge would be required to spend time, money and

energy in defending of his own order, but a situation will

come when he will not be in a position to perform his judicial

role of hearing and deciding lis, but would only require to

defend the orders passed by him previously. This is never

contemplated by the law and the judicial system. Permitting

such situation to occur will lead only to chaos and nothing

else. One more aspect requires consideration is that to

maintain the independence of judiciary, the judges must be

protected from attempts made by unscrupulous judgments,

who leave no stone unturned, to secure order in favour by

hook or crook. Scandalising judges and browbeating them are

some of such tactics. In one of the present Appeals i.e. Appeal

No. 754 of 2025, order dated 3rd July 2025 filed by Appellant

himself indicats that he had joined Respondent No.2 herein,

as party in Protest Petition. The said order requires

reproduction herein:

“ORDER

1. This is a Protest Petition filed by the petitioner

in ‘C’ summary filed on 19.09.2016 in FIR-

353/2011. He has claimed the reliefs for rejection

of ‘C’ summery, for direction for further

investigation, registration of case under Section

4(2)(b) of POA Act and for further investigation,

direction to register FIR, calling for recording and

proceedings and for expeditious trial.

2. Petitioner has made the State Government of

Maharashtra as accused No.1, Special Judge of

Additional District and Sessions Court, Kalyan Shri.

P. P. Muley as accused No.2 and Ld. Advocate Shri.

M.M. Deshmukh of Kalyan as accused No.3.

3. The Superintendent of Additional District

Court, Kalyan has submitted the objections to

register the case on 02.07.2025.

4. Heard the petitioner at a length. Perused the

Petition filed by the petitioner.

5. Considering the reliefs claimed by the

petitioner the arraying of Special Judge of

Additional District and Sessions Court, Kalyan Shri.

P. P. Muley and Ld. Advocate Shri. M.Μ. Deshmukh

of Kalyan is not warranted.

6. Secondly, Shri. P.P. Muley, Special Judge of

District Kalyan and Advocate Shri. M.M. Deshmukh

were not the parties to the earlier proceedings.

Therefore, they are not to be made parties in this

petition.

7. Thirdly, Shri. P. P. Muley, District Judge-5 and

Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan is protested

under the provisions of Judge (Protection) Act,

1985. As per the provision of Section 3 of this Act,

notwithstanding anything contained in any other

law of the time being in force and subject to the

provisions of Sub-section (2), no court shall

entertain or continue any civil or criminal

proceeding against any person, who is or was a

Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done

or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting

or purporting to act in the discharge of his official

or judicial duty or function.

8. It is argued by the petitioner that the

protection under the Judge Protection Act, 1985 is

not applicable.

9. Petitioner relied upon the case of Baburao

Dagadu Paralkar V/s. State of Maharashtra wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “no

Judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be

allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud.

Fraud unravels everything.”

10. As per the present case and the above referred

case are altogether different. Therefore, in my

opinion with due respect the above referred

Judgment Baburao (Supra), is not applicable to the

present case. If the petitioner is having grievance

against the orders passed by any court, petitioner

has every right to challenge those orders before the

Hon’ble Superior Courts.

11. Considering the above said discussion, facts of

the case and the reliefs claimed, I pass the following

order.

ORDER

The Protest Petition be registered only against the

respondent No.1 i.e. State Government of

Maharashtra.”

11. Fortunately the learned Special Court refuses to

approve the joining of a judge as party to the said

proceedings. Thus, it can be safely said that an attempt in

joining judge who passed impunged order as party respondent

in these Appeals is not only aimed at pressurising him but also

to caution other judges not to pass order against him or they

would also face similar fate. Most importantly permitting such

impleadment will take away the essence of the judicial

system, wherein the judges are required to live the oath of

discharging duties without fear.

12. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the

Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of

Common Citizen of India (Common Man) And Anr. Vs. The

Hon’ble High Court Judicature of Bombay And Ors7. The

relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced herein below:

“16. The attempt of the petitioners to implead the

Judges of this court deserves to be strongly

deprecated. A litigant cannot, even if he is appearing

in person and just because he is unsuccessful in the

initial round, while seeking a review of the orders

passed by this court, implead the Hon’ble Judges and

the Bench sitting collectively or individually as party

respondents. The review petition, as is ordinarily well

settled, has to be heard by the same Judge for the

review goes to the Judge and appeal goes to the court.

If the review has to be heard by the very same Judge,

then we do not see how the petitioner can complain

that the said review petition should not be heard by

one of the Judges comprising the Bench or if that is

heard by a distinct Bench and dismissed, he can go on

impleading and arraying all the Judges as party

respondents and seeking reliefs against them

personally. We do not think that the petitioner’s

prayers in that behalf can be granted.

23. Before parting, we must once again reiterate our

strong disapproval of the practice which appears to be

prevailing in the Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of

this court. The Registry there does not seem to think it

necessary to object to the impleadment of the Hon’ble

Judges comprising a Division Bench or a Judge sitting

singly as party respondents to review petitions or

applications in that nature.

7 W.P. No. 10972 of 2015

24. We have not been shown any rule which requires

such impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend

that hereafter, the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon

parties/litigants and their advocates deleting the

names of Hon’ble Judges as party respondents to

review petitions and until such deletion, the matter

should be treated as not ready or under objections.

Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and

their advocates to delete such names and references to

the Hon’ble Judges and personal allegations against

them, if the same are not deleted by carrying out

appropriate amendments, the Registry shall append a

note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly that

parties and lawyers were asked to delete such

references, but there being no compliance, the matter

comes to be placed before an appropriate court for

directions. That would enable the appropriate court to

dismiss such proceedings only on this ground. Just as

there is enough justification for discontinuance of such

practice because none can insist on such impleadment,

its discontinuance upholds a salutary principle. The

sanctity and purity of court proceedings lies in

protection to Judges and presiding officers against

personal attacks by litigants lawyers on them. It is too

well settled to require any reference to a judgment or

a precedent that there is freedom to be critical of a

judgment, but the language of such criticism must be

sobre and respectful. The discourse of law is the

discourse of civility. Even in the memo of review

petitions or appeals, criticism of the judgment should

not reflect any personal attack of the litigant or the

draftsman on the Judge or presiding officer. None can

claim a freedom to mount an attack, and that too

contemptuous, on a Judge while criticising or assailing

his judgment. If this much protection to the Judge is

not ensured or there is no safeguard against malicious

personal allegations, no court or no Judge can

function fearlessly and independently. Sometimes, a

court is required to be severely critical of the conduct

of parties before it. It does not demean or show any

disrespect to them much less personally, but ensures

that the hand of the law is strong enough, and its arm

long enough to punish every guilty person howsoever

high he may be and to reach injustice wherever it is

found.”

The above observations though made in case of review

petition, would aptly apply to the present case and issue

involved herein.

13. Upshot of above discussion is that joining of a Judge,

passing order impugned, as party Respondent in an Appeal is

not permissible and Appeal with such party would not be

maintainable.

14. Needless to say that even though it is not open for

Appellant or any person to join the Judge concerned, who has

passed the impugned order, as a party Respondent to the

Appeal, there would be inherent power of the High Court, so

also in appropriate cases, Appellate Court to seek an explanation from the concerned Judge for passing of the order impugned.

15. The Appellant is therefore directed to delete Respondent

No.2 from the array of Respondent within a period of two

weeks from today.

16. Registry is directed not to register any Appeal, wherein

judicial officer is made party Respondent and in any such

cases, objection be raised with regard to maintainability of

Appeal. This order be circulated to all Appellate Courts in

State of Maharashtra, for its compliance.

17. Stand over to 20th February 2026.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)