NazariyaEvery side of the story. You decide.
LiveCourts & Law· Updated 4 NovLimited coverageChild involved

SC expunges High Court remarks against judge over typos

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks the Rajasthan High Court made against a trial judge over errors in a judgement. A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya called the remarks uncalled for and avoidable, and said the judge was not heard before they were made.

Why it matters: The ruling shows the limits on how High Courts can criticise subordinate judges, which affects the working and service records of judicial officers across India.

Based on 2 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.

Large outlets read: 1 of 15 (Times of India). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.

What's missing: Neither report says whether the underlying convictions are being challenged on appeal.

What everyone agrees on

  • The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks the Rajasthan High Court made against a trial judge over errors in a judgement. 1 2
  • The bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya called the remarks uncalled for and avoidable. 1 2
  • The Supreme Court held the remarks were made without giving the judge a chance to be heard, which violated natural justice. 1 2
  • The High Court had criticised the judge for relying on a stenographer and had directed judicial academy training. 1 2

How the coverage differs

Both outlets report the ruling the same way and differ only in emphasis, such as the judge's explanation versus the High Court's 'cut, copy and paste' charge.

  • Natural justice: the remarks were made without a hearing, and the Supreme Court also set aside the training direction and the ACR entry. 1
  • The High Court's criticism: it said the judge used 'cut, copy and paste' and signed a judgement likely drafted by a stenographer without reading it. 2
  • The judge's explanation: the errors were typographical, and overlapping evidence came from two intertwined cases. 1

Where they disagree

No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.

What's missing

  • Case status: neither report says whether the underlying convictions and sentences are under appeal. 1 2
  • Full order: the exact wording of the Supreme Court's directions on the service record is not quoted. 1 2
  • High Court response: there is no reaction from the Rajasthan High Court to the ruling. 1 2

The articles

Not ideological
1 · LiveLawConfidence: High
Inadvertent Typographical Errors No Ground To Castigate Judicial Officer : Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judge
This article:

Why: Court report on a judicial service and natural justice matter; no religion, social justice or economic policy angle, and no stance toward the Union or state government.

2 · Times of IndiaConfidence: High
Judge needn't face strictures for typos in judgement: SC
This article:

Why: Reports a Supreme Court ruling on judicial conduct and natural justice for a trial judge; no religion, social-justice or economic-policy angle, and no government stance.

How we score

Ideology score, −10 to +10

Left-leaning (−10 to −3)
Secular-pluralist framing, minority protection, caste justice and voter access, civil liberties, an active state.
Centre (−2 to +2)
Several positions represented fairly, neutral language, reporting kept apart from opinion.
Right-leaning (+3 to +10)
Cultural nationalism, national strength and security, scepticism of group-based policy, voter-roll integrity, market-led growth.

Stance toward the government

Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.

The swap test

If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.

Confidence

High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.

Limited coverage and blindspots

Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.

Not ideological

Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.

How often the feed refreshes

This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:

Wires and the top 20 outletschecked every 5 minutes
All other outletschecked every 15 minutes
New storygoes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage
Live storiesnew articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly
Home page orderevery 15 minutes

Updates are added, never rewritten

New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.

Live, winding down, archived

A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Sport results skip winding down and are archived after about 2 days, unless police or a court are involved. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.

Large outlets missing

NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.

Who is accountable

Editor and grievance officer

Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.

How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.

Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.

Funding and ownership

Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.

Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.

Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.

Appeals

Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.

Rules we follow

No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.

Corrections log

  • 16 Oct · Goregaon toddler death: removed the building's name and an unverified claim about the 10-year-old's health, to protect the child's identity.
  • 16 Oct · India–US trade deal: merged two duplicate story pages into one.
  • 16 Oct · INS Mangrol: one report names the commissioning officer differently from three others; flagged in the story, not resolved.