Public Insult By Judicial Order Has Tremendous Impact On Individual’s Reputation, Restrain Must Be Exercised: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that public insult and disrespect by way of a publicly available judicial order has tremendous impact on an individual’s self-esteem and reputation in the society and judicial restrain must be exercised by courts in passing such strictures.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while expunging the remarks made by a trial court against working of officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The trial court had also imposed costs of Rs. 16,000 on CBI for failure to submit draft questions and incriminating evidence due to which recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was getting delayed.

“This Court is at a loss to understand as to how such a warning in the nature of threat could have been made part of a judicial order. Every judicial order, including a contempt order which is a serious matter for any person or agency, has to be passed with utmost circumspection after individually examining the facts and conduct of the person or agency concerned. Therefore, this Court is also inclined to expunge the said remarks contained in the impugned order dated 05.03.2018,” the court said.

As the trial court had also expressed displeasure about framing of questions in improper sentences by officers, Justice Sharma said that it was “totally unwarranted” to order assessment of capability and working capacity of CBI officers and going to the extent of writing to the concerned Joint Director and DOP to make assessment about their capability.

“In case, the sentences framed in the English language were found to be unsatisfactory, the Court should have noted that it is not the mother tongue of the officials drafting the questions and all may not be well-versed and proficient in written or spoken English as to match the expectations and level of those who have mastered the foreign language,” the court said.

It added that though english language is used in courts in the national capital, however, it does not behold either a court or any authority to castigate someone for improper framing of questions in language which the officer may not be proficient.

“To write to the disciplinary authority of an officer to evaluate a person‟s capability of working does not lie in the domain of judicial adjudication process where it is not in question. The need for judicial restraint should be exercised while passing such strictures and sending them to disciplinary authority as they may amount to doing injustice to a person who is not an offender but a defender before the Court, while being in process of doing justice to the alleged offender,” Justice Sharma said.

Furthermore, the court also observed that examination of an accused under section 313 of CrPC remains a “dialogue” between him and the court, adding that the said “important judicial act” has to be performed by the court itself.

It added that it is always the primary duty of the court to extract the incriminating evidence against the accused from the records of the case, put it to the accused and seek an explanation, as the court is the best judge of what is incriminating and what is not.

“In the opinion of this Court, at the stage of examination of an accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Courts may take assistance of prosecutor as well as defence counsel in preparation of relevant questions, however, for a just and fair trial, it is apt for the Court to base its examination of an accused on its own assessment about incriminating evidence against the accused which has come on record,” the court said.

Justice Sharma also said that the competence, expertise or legitimacy of a person’s capability to assist or work should not be taken upon itself by the court and any displeasure and disagreement, if any, must be expressed in “respectful, restrained and courteous way.”

“The impact of public insult and disrespect by way of a publically available judicial order is tremendous on a person‟s self-esteem and his reputation in the society. The Court must have an eye to the after effects of such strictures and the consequences of such observations,” the court said.

It added: “This Court has not expunged the displeasure expressed by the learned Trial Court regarding delay in preparation of the questions as the Court could have done so in its judicial domain, however, the irregularity and illegality regarding putting the entire burden of the same on the prosecution which is not permissible under the law has been discussed in the judgment separately and adjudicated upon.”

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTATION v. S K GHOSH & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 349

Click Here To Read Order