The Supreme Court reiterated its stance that adverse observations should not be made against judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to respond.

The case involved an Additional District and Sessions Judge from Mysuru, who appealed against adverse observations made by the Karnataka High Court regarding the judge's exercise of discretion in a criminal petition.

The High Court had criticized the judge, stating that they had "lost sight of the judicious thought process" and "failed to exercise judicial discretion." Additionally, the High Court directed the Registry to seek orders from the Chief Justice to assign the judge to the Judicial Academy for training.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices A. S. Bopanna and Pankaj Mithal, expressed its disagreement with the High Court's decision. The bench emphasized that such adverse orders should not be made without giving the person concerned an opportunity to respond, as it can impact their career and reputation.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the direction to post the appellant judge in the Judicial Academy and expunged the adverse observations made against the judge in the High Court's order.