सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पूर्व न्यायिक अधिकारी के प्राथमिक सुनवाई के अनुरोध को अस्वीकार किया, बताया कि संविधान सभी को समान न्याय का अधिकार देता है

Dismissing a former Special Judge’s petition seeking expeditious disposal of his challenge to his dismissal from service pending before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution gives every person equal access to justice, so a former judicial officer cannot claim priority on that account, while granting him liberty to press his application for early hearing before the High Court.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to give priority hearing to a former District Judge who had approached it for early disposal of his writ petition against dismissal from service, pending before the Allahabad High Court, observing that the Constitution does not permit preferential treatment to anyone [Rakesh Kumar Nain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].

A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on October 1, 2026 in Diary No. 48030 of 2026.

Background of the case

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Nain, was posted as a Special Judge hearing cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Full Court of the Allahabad High Court dismissed him from service with immediate effect after he was found guilty of judicial misconduct on corruption charges. He challenged the dismissal by a writ petition before the High Court, which is still pending. Aggrieved by the delay in its disposal, he approached the Supreme Court. The findings of misconduct and the validity of the dismissal are matters for the High Court, and the Supreme Court has not examined them.

‘We loathe petitions of this nature’

At the outset, the Bench declined to entertain the petition. Justice Bagchi said that unless egregious claims of delay are made, there can be no misplaced sympathy for the petitioner merely because he is a former judicial officer, and recorded:

“We loathe petitions of this nature, as any misplaced sympathy due to inordinate delay in disposal may cause breach of similar right to unrepresented litigants standing in queue for adjudication in the said High Court. Given the nature, we give liberty to the petitioner to press this application for expeditious hearing before the said High Court.”

He added that, as far as the present Bench is concerned, the Court will make every effort to stop “opportunistic interventions”.

‘A bus conductor and a Principal Secretary’

When the petitioner’s counsel submitted that, unlike an ordinary litigant, the plea was filed by a former judicial officer, Justice Bagchi reacted strongly, saying the argument ran against the basic principles of the Constitution:

“You are making a submission which is against the basic ideas of the Constitution that every citizen, irrespective of his station in office, you have access to justice. A bus conductor and even a Principal Secretary of the State have equal right of access to justice for legal disposal.”

The Judge added that, in this space of constitutional equality, the Court would not create individualistic interventions, and that it would look into any expeditious-hearing application only if convinced of an egregious breach by the High Court that is unfair or dishonest.

Why the order matters

The order signals that the Court will not carve out a faster track for litigants because of their office, past or present, and that a person who complains of delay in a High Court is directed first to press for an early hearing there. The petition was dismissed with liberty to move the High Court, and the pending challenge to the dismissal will be decided by it on merits.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Nain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [Diary No. 48030 of 2026]

Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India

Date of Order: October 1, 2026

Powered by Nyaya 247 News