Summary
The Supreme Court expunged remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional Sessions Judge while it set aside his strictures on police officers. A superior court may criticise an erroneous order, even strongly, but should avoid personal comments on the conduct or calibre of a judicial officer; any concern about conduct belongs on the administrative side, where the officer can be heard.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, while expunging a Sessions Judge's adverse remarks against police officers under Section 482 CrPC, was justified in recording adverse remarks against the judicial officer himself.
- What restraint superior courts must observe when correcting orders of courts under their appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The police officers invoked the High Court's inherent power to expunge the trial judge's remarks. The Court noted that the High Court may use this power and Article 227 to correct errors and expunge uncalled-for observations, but must criticise the order, not the judge. (¶¶ 5, 15)
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaRecognised as a source of the High Court's supervisory power to correct errors of courts under its jurisdiction, to be exercised with restraint and without personal adverse comment on the judicial officer. (¶ 15)
Held
- The appellant could not complain about the part of the High Court's order expunging his remarks against the investigating officer and SHO and recalling his directions to senior police officers; his grievance was confined to the remarks against him personally. (¶ 12)
- Relying on State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim and In Re: 'K', A Judicial Officer, judges must express opinions with restraint and sobriety, and disparaging remarks on persons' conduct should be made only where justified by evidence, after an opportunity to explain, and where necessary to decide the case. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Superior courts exercising appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction may set aside erroneous orders, expunge unwarranted observations and criticise errors, sometimes in strong language, but must distinguish between criticising an order and criticising the judicial officer; personal adverse comments should be avoided. No court is to be called a 'subordinate court' except in the sense of such jurisdiction. (¶ 15)
- Improper conduct noticed on the judicial side should be brought to the Chief Justice's attention on the administrative side, where the officer can explain himself; personal strictures in a judgment harm a judicial officer's career. Given heavy workloads and the fact that every judge errs, personal criticism of judges in judgments must be avoided. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Describing the appellant as having 'embarked on an inexorable quest' and his approach as a 'judicial misadventure', and advising him to be circumspect in future, was improper: a judgment on the judicial side cannot be used to advise an individual judicial officer. The remarks were expunged, without binding the High Court's administrative side. (¶ 17)
- The Court did not decide the validity of Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I, Volume III of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders (on judicial remarks censuring police officers), as the High Court's Rule Committee had approved its deletion. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeals allowed; the adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court's order dated 02.03.2023 expunged, the expunction not binding the High Court on its administrative side.