Judges Also Have Right To Stand By Their Family Member Who May Be A Victim, Can't Be Denied Justice Due To 'Occupational Hazard': Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has said that a judicial officer by virtue of being a judge does not waive of the fundamental rights which are available to other citizens, including the social and private rights to look after and stand by his or her family.

“Similarly as an accused cannot be denied justice in case a judicial officer or his family member is a complainant in a criminal case, the judicial officer and his family too cannot be denied justice in case, they are victims, as it will amount to denying fundamental, private and social rights to a judicial officer and his family which are otherwise available to other citizens and persons of the community. Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court made the observations while denying bail to a man accused of cheating a woman, who was sister of a judicial officer, and her family, by getting her married to a man whom she met on a matrimonial website, despite knowing that he was already married.

The applicant was the teacher of the main accused. The prosecution alleged that the main accused was already married to another lady, but had shown his marital status as unmarried on his profile and had shown interest in about 1411 profiles of different age groups of female.

It was alleged that the applicant had visited the house of the complainant, met her parents and affirmed the fact that the main accused had lost his parents.

Denying bail to him, the court said prima facie, that it was the applicant who had convinced the complainant and her parents for marriage by misleading and convincing them that the main accused was unmarried and his parents had passed away.

However, the court took strong objection on the applicant's argument that the brother of the complainant was a judicial officer and therefore, due to his influence, the FIR was registered and bail was not being granted to him.

The court further noted that not only the submissions, but the applicant's counsel had also filed on record an annexure in the bail plea revealing the name and other details of the judge, despite a trial court order warning him not to do so.

Court said that just by being the sister of a judicial officer does not mean that she has lesser rights compared to other complainants to stand up, fight for herself and seek justice.

It added that it will be a travesty of justice in case the victim fails to get justice for herself or is denied equal opportunities to seek justice only because one of her biological relatives is a judicial officer and is dispensing justice to others.

“Moreover, a judicial officer by virtue of being a judicial officer does not waive his fundamental rights which are available to all other citizens of the country as also his social and private rights to look after and stand by his family. He also has a right as the biological sibling of the complainant/victim to stand by her and his family and taking action against any person who brings harm or disrepute to his family,” the court said.

It added that judges, like most other people of the community, care about their reputation to the extent that it is held as an important social and professional asset and by disclosing the identity of the judicial officer repeatedly, the accused was trying to take advantage of a judicial system where judges often speak openly and publicly for themselves for fear of loss of reputation.

“To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in judicial system will amount to judging judicial system with a myopic eye and suggest that a judicial system is so fragile that it would take sides and not do justice. To take a contrary view can also be seen to amount to unjustifiably suspecting a person of interference due to his occupation without any evidence and would result in doing injustice to him, in a zeal to appear just,” the court said.

The court dismissed the bail plea and directed the Registry that henceforth, the first page of filings in cases involving sexual offences must be annexed with a certificate or note, by the counsel, certifying that the name of the complainant or any other name etc. has not been mentioned in the body of the petition or in any of the annexures.

“This Court notes that there are practice directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023. The directions were issued in compliance of the directions passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 3635/2022 titled as "Saleem v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr." to ensure that the identity of victims of sexual assault is not disclosed in the petitions,” the court noted.