Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer

“Courts Cannot Substitute Their View for the Review Committee in Matters Relating to Integrity of Judicial Officers”, In a significant judgment concerning service jurisprudence and evaluation of judicial officers, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Junior Civil Judge challenging an adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) which recorded his integrity as doubtful.

The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that in matters relating to the assessment of integrity of judicial officers, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the review committee.

The Court observed:

“It would be extremely difficult to obtain direct evidence or definite material to demonstrate that the integrity of an officer is doubtful. In such circumstances, this Court cannot substitute its view for the view of the review committee.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the judicial officer challenging the adverse remarks recorded in his Confidential Report for the year 2009.

Background of the Case

The petitioner N. Vijaya Babu was appointed as a Junior Civil Judge in 2008 and served in various locations within the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

In November 2011, the petitioner received his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2009, which recorded that his work was average, his judicial approach was erratic, and his integrity was doubtful.

Aggrieved by these remarks, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking the material on which the ACR had been prepared. In response, the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court provided the relevant documents, which included:

• Work review statements for the year 2009
• Confidential reports submitted by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda
• Details of two disciplinary enquiries pending against the petitioner

Subsequently, both disciplinary proceedings were dropped in June and August 2012, resulting in the petitioner’s exoneration.

After the closure of these enquiries, the petitioner filed a review application seeking expunction of the adverse remarks in the ACR. However, the High Court administration rejected the request on 19 February 2013, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court’s Analysis on Discreet Enquiries

The High Court carefully examined the argument that discreet enquiries cannot form the basis of adverse remarks in ACRs.

The Court noted that none of the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner held that discreet enquiries were impermissible in assessing the integrity of judicial officers.

Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment in Barkha Gupta v. High Court of Delhi, the Court observed that the issue there was different. That case concerned discreet enquiries conducted for a later period being used to record adverse entries for an earlier period without consulting the inspecting judge.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the facts of the present case were distinguishable.

The Court reiterated that questions of integrity rarely have direct proof, and therefore assessment often depends on inputs gathered confidentially through discreet enquiries.

The Court observed:

“As is the normal case, more often there cannot be direct evidence or definite material to prove or substantiate the opinions expressed in the Confidential Reports on the integrity of the officers.”

Scope of Judicial Review in ACR Matters

The Bench emphasized that evaluation of judicial officers is primarily an administrative function of the High Court, and courts exercising writ jurisdiction must exercise restraint.

The Court held that judicial review cannot extend to substituting the opinion of the review committee, particularly in matters involving assessment of integrity or reputation of judicial officers.

Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the decision rejecting the petitioner’s request for expunction of the adverse entry.

Important Caution Issued by the Court

While dismissing the petition, the High Court issued an important caution regarding the recording of adverse remarks against judicial officers.

The Court acknowledged that judicial officers are often vulnerable to allegations from disgruntled litigants, lawyers, or colleagues, especially when judicial orders are unfavourable.

The Court therefore observed that authorities must exercise great caution before recording adverse remarks relating to integrity.

The Bench emphasized:

“It would not be safe to record an adverse entry, especially regarding the integrity of a judicial officer, based on a single input, even if the said input is from the Principal District Judge.”

The Court further advised that allegations affecting integrity should be cross-checked through inputs from diverse sources before such remarks are recorded in the Confidential Reports of judicial officers.

After considering the entire matter, the Division Bench held that there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the review committee regarding the petitioner’s Confidential Report.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court made no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

The judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review in matters relating to evaluation of judicial officers’ performance and integrity. While acknowledging the necessity of discreet enquiries in such assessments, the Court also underscored the importance of procedural caution and reliance on multiple sources before recording adverse remarks affecting the reputation and career of a judicial officer.

Date of Decision: March 2026