Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge

While expunging from a judgment of the Delhi High Court certain adverse remarks made against a Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court on Friday (November 22) emphasised the need for restraint on the part of superior courts while commenting on judicial officers.

While the superior courts, in the exercise of their appellate/revisional powers, can set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, they should avoid personal comments against the judicial officers. Though strong language can be used to criticise erroneous orders, such criticism should be in the context of the impugned order and not on the personal conduct of the judge, the Supreme Court cautioned.

After discussing a line of precedents which advocated judicial restrain, the Court observed in the judgment :

"There can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by using strong language. However, such observations must always be in the context of errors in the impugned orders. While doing so, the courts have to show restraint, and adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer should be avoided. There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer. The first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided."

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih made these observations in an appeal filed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service against some observations made by the Delhi High Court.

The judicial officer, while dealing with an anticipatory bail application, had made certain adverse comments criticising the Investigating Officer, saying that proper investigation was not being carried out and that there was "something fishy." The police filed a petition in the Delhi High Court against those observations.

The Delhi High Court, while allowing the police's petition, passed certain harsh observations against the judicial officer. The High Court also relied on a rule which restrained the judicial officers from censuring police officers. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had criticised this rule (Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I of Volume III of the High Court Rules). Rule 6 provided that it is undesirable for courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant to the case.

However, the judgment did not deal with this Rule since the High Court withdrew it following the disapproval expressed by the Supreme Court.

"Prima facie, we were of the view that this Rule interferes with the discretion available to the judges. It is unnecessary for us now to deal with Rule 6 as a document has been placed on record by the learned ASG appearing for the High Court that the Rule Committee of the High Court has approved the deletion of Rule 6 and the approval of the Hon'ble Governor has been sought for the deletion," the Court observed.

Judges can also err

The judgment also referred to the immense stress faced by judges due to the huge workload, which makes them prone to make errors.

"Every Judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors. In a given case, after writing several sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise. As stated earlier, the higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided." the judgment observed.

The Court recalled that in 2002, it was observed in the All India Judges case that the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary should be 50 per million by 2007. However, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million in 2024. "Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased. The Judges have to work under stress," the Court said.

Case : Sonu Agnihotri v.Chandra Shekhar and others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Click here to read the judgment