Sessions Judge Moves Supreme Court To Expunge Adverse Remarks Of High Court Over Directions Against Delhi Police
In a judicial officer's plea seeking expunging of remarks made against him by a Delhi High Court judge, the Supreme Court has sought the High Court's response through the Registrar General."Let the Delhi High Court through the Registrar General to be impleaded as a party respondent in this appeal. Cause title may be amended for this purpose and notice be served upon the Registrar General of...
In a judicial officer's plea seeking expunging of remarks made against him by a Delhi High Court judge, the Supreme Court has sought the High Court's response through the Registrar General.
"Let the Delhi High Court through the Registrar General to be impleaded as a party respondent in this appeal. Cause title may be amended for this purpose and notice be served upon the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court," a three-Judge Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar ordered.
While allowing the impleadment of the High Court, it was added that the hearing in the appeals may be expedited.
The case arises out of certain observations made by the petitioner/Additional Sessions Judge against 2 police officials (IO/SHO), who investigated a theft case. Remarking that there was "something fishy" on the part of the police insofar as the investigation of the case was concerned, and adding that the DCP concerned appeared to have “brushed the matter under the carpet”, the ASJ had directed that an enquiry be conducted into the police officials, including one by a DCP level official outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station.
Assailing the observations and directions, the police officials had moved the High Court.
The High Court, setting aside the impugned directions and observations, had opined that the issues relating to the conduct of the police officials with respect to the investigation and keeping of records were "excessively exaggerated" by the ASJ.
"...the Ld. ASJ ought not to have embarked on an inexorable quest when his original concern had been suitably addressed. The remarks and the phraseology used by the Ld. ASJ is summary in nature, penal in its scope, stigmatizing in its tone and tenor and as already motioned, beyond the ken of expected judicial conduct".
It was remarked that the ASJ, while reflecting on the conduct of the police officials, was "completely out of context and inappropriate". The High Court had further observed that the ASJ overreached in ordering a second enquiry from a DCP level official outside jurisdiction of Police Station South, having wrongly and unnecessarily disbelieved the report of the concerned DCP.
"This direction was completely exaggerated and wholly unnecessary and merely impinges on the administrative time of the police authorities for something which was already addressed and possibly, at some level, quite trivial."
Notably, the ASJ's directions were called "disproportionate" and "a serious overreach into administrative functions of police authorities". Aggrieved by the same, the ASJ moved the Supreme Court.
It is worthwhile to mention that earlier, a Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that judicial strictures must be passed with utmost circumspection, as criticism may have devastating effect on professional career of officers.
Counsels for petitioner/ASJ: Advocate Sagar Suri; AOR Anil Kumar Mishra
Counsels for respondents: Advocates Shiv Mangal Sharma, Nidhi Jaswal, Sanjivini Mishra and Rajat Nair; AOR M/S Aura & Co and M K Maroria
Case Title: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.12012-12013/2023