Delhi HC Expunges Direction For Disciplinary Action Against Police Officials, Says Adverse Remarks Be Avoided Unless Party Is Present, Heard

“…judges should refrain from making disparaging remarks against a person or authorities, unless and until the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending itself, whether there is any evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct”, said Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar.

In the facts of the case, it was noted that scathing remarks were made and impugned directions passed in absence of any material to show that the police officials had any malafides.

The court added that even if, in the opinion of the Sessions Judge, there was a lapse on the part of the officials, the matter may have been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police, and left at that.

“The Ld. A.S.J. has in a sense encroached upon the administrative functions of the police administration and even if there was a lapse on the part of the police officials, the Ld. A.S.J., should have recorded such lapses and indicate that such lapses should not occur in future, instead of directing the Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary action”, observed Justice Bhatnagar.

The petition had been filed by the police officials against whom the Sessions Judge had made certain remarks and issued directions. The said officials were part of a raiding team that was obstructed by accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Reportedly, the accused had fired/attempted to fire at the raiding team. Having been found in conscious possession of illegal arms and ammunition, an FIR was registered against the accused. Charges were framed under Sections 186/353/307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.

The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, holding that the evidence of members of the raiding team did not inspire confidence and the case reflected false implication. The Commissioner of Police was directed to take disciplinary action against members of the raiding team (petitioners), whether they were in service or since retired. In case the members were retired, action was directed to be taken w.r.t. deduction/stoppage of their pension.

After perusing the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Justice Bhatnagar said,

“The Ld. A.S.J. has prejudged the actions/inactions of the investigating agency and police officials and no opportunity to be heard was given to them by the Ld. A.S.J. who went on to accuse them of falsely implicating accused persons in this case...The tone and tenor of the impugned directions reflects that the police officials have also been held to be suspects in the crime alongwith the accused persons.”

In this backdrop, the petition was allowed and the directions passed by the Sessions Judge expunged.

Advocates Vikas Arora, Radhika Arora and Abhay Sachan appeared for petitioners

ASC Sanjeev Bhandari with Advocates Sushant Bali, Kunal Mittal and Saurabh Tanwar appeared for State

Case Title: Yogendra Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors., W.P.(Crl) 816/2023