New Delhi: Turning the spotlight on judicial standards in the digital age, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last week criticised an additional sessions judge for relying on a pop-up notification from a law website’s mobile app—rather than an actual Supreme Court judgment—when denying anticipatory bail in a narcotics case.
In his latest 21 November interim order, Justice Sumeet Goel issued a stern warning to all judicial officers against relying on mobile app notifications while deciding cases. He also directed that judicial officers across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh receive structured training on the responsible and judicious use of online legal information and technology.
The issue originated on 11 June 2025, when Additional Sessions Judge Hem Raj of the Kurukshetra court during a hearing on a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, denied a suspect, Ram Ji, anticipatory bail.
On 8 October, while hearing Ram Ji’s challenge to the order, Justice Goel discovered that Judge Hem Raj had cited an alleged Supreme Court observation from an online pop-up notification to deny bail—without providing any complete citation or details of the original judgment.
Justice Goel then sought the judge’s explanation, noting in an 8 October interim order: “In view of the above, let comments of the learned presiding officer be sought in this regard through the registrar general of this court. The said officer, while furnishing his comments, shall also append a copy of the above-said judgment relied upon by him while passing the order dated 11.06.2025, latest within 10 days from today.”
Responding on 10 October, Judge Hem Raj stated, “While passing the judgment in an anticipatory bail on 11.06.2025, I recalled the pop-up of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (copy of judgment and pop-up are enclosed). Therefore, I applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the bail application titled as Ram Ji vs. State of Haryana, and dismissed the anticipatory bail.”
The pop-up claimed that granting anticipatory bail in narcotics cases was “very serious” and “unheard of”. However, the actual Supreme Court order had only directed the state to consider filing a cancellation plea for bail already granted in narcotics matters, without laying down any blanket prohibition or guidance for trial courts.
Finding that Judge Hemraj had “not bothered to read the entire judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court, much less understanding the import thereof”, Justice Goel—through his latest interim order in notice (IOIN) dated 21 November—emphasised that judicial orders must be based solely on verified legal sources. His order stressed that only authentic legal material, such as reported judgments and official publications, should guide judicial decisions.
The order further noted that while technology may assist in staying updated with legal developments, it cannot substitute proper judicial scrutiny and verification. “The Internet is a vast repository of information that comes with the crucial requirement of verification for authenticity—especially when decisions could have life-changing impacts,” he observed.
He also directed the registrar general to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of appropriate action against the judicial officer, Hem Raj.
Additionally, Justice Goel reiterated that all judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh must be sensitised and trained on the proper use of online sources, warning that indiscriminate reliance on unverified digital material could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: To protect victims—in SC, Centre defends archaic system of disbursing railway accident compensation