High Court Cannot Seek Explanation From Judicial Officer For Judicial Action : Supreme Court

A higher court cannot seek an explanation from a judicial officer for a decision made in a case, stated the Supreme Court, while expugning the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a District & Sessions Judge.

The explanation can be sought only on the administrative side, the Supreme Court stated. 

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by a judicial officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against him. The High Court observed that the judicial officer, while rejecting a bail application, did not incorporate the details of the criminal antecedents of the accused as mandated by an earlier judgment of the High Court. The High Court observed that this amounted to "indiscipline" and "may also amount to contempt" and sought an explanation from him.

In the impugned order, the single judge of the High Court made strong observations against the judicial officer, saying that he was liable for judicial indiscipline and invited the attention of the High Court Chief Justice to the matter for necessary action. 

The Supreme Court took great exception to the High Court's action. Firstly, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued to incorporate a chart containing antecedents of the accused cannot be read as mandatory. "If a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts," the Court said.

Secondly, the Court disapproved of the High Court seeking an explanation from the judge for a judicial action.

"We fail to understand how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion incorporated in paragraph 9. Secondly, even assuming that the appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, the High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer. The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side," the judgment authored by Justice Oka stated.

"The appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply. With the utmost respect to the High Court, undertaking such an exercise was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court which has a huge pendency," the judgment added.

The Court referred to the recent judgment in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar which advised higher courts' judges to avoid personal criticism of judicial officers.

"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," the Court had observed in Sonu Agnihotri.

Accordingly, the adverse remarks against the judicial officer were expunged. The Court also held that such remarks cannot be the basis for any action against the officer on the administrative side.

Case : Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Click here to read the judgment