An additional district judge from Bihar has approached the Supreme Court after his suspension by the Bihar High Court and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Shahi Kant Rai, an additional district and sessions judge posted in Araria, Bihar, has said in his plea that he was suspended after he concluded the trial in a POCSO case in a day. The trial was about the rape of a six-year-old girl.
Appearing for Rai, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the Supreme Court for an early listing of the matter as the district judge has been kept under suspension for five months already. The Supreme Court has agreed to list the matter for Friday, before a bench of Justices U U Lalit and Justice S R Bhat.
In his petition, Rai has said that he has been suspended for delivering express justice in two child abuse cases. One of which, he concluded in one day, and another one in four days. In one of the cases, he delivered life imprisonment, while the death penalty was imposed in the second case.
In his plea, the petitioner mentioned, “Institutional bias against the petitioner as the judgements of the petitioner in Spl. POCSO Case No. 01/2022 giving capital punishment to accused Md. Major in four working days of trial and in Spl. POCSO Case No. 36/2021 giving punishment of life imprisonment in one working day of trial had caught immense media attention and was widely reported and appreciated by the government as well as by the public.”
Rai also mentioned that he even received death threats after he awarded the death penalty to Md. Major in one of the POCSO cases.
In his petition, Rai also mentioned that the Bihar High Court had denied him his first promotion in 2014. He had sent a representation to the HC in 2020 pleading that since there had been no adverse remarks against him since 2007, his promotion to the post of civil judge (senior division) be considered to be given in 2013-14 instead of 2014-15 as it made him junior to his batchmates.
The High Court dismissed his representation and sent him a Show Cause notice last year for questioning the process of evaluation of judgements and raising an unfounded issue of personal bias and impartiality.
