Supreme Court Criticises Delhi HC's Directions To Judicial Officers Against Censuring Police Officers

The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 1) criticized the Delhi High Court's Rules for “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases”, which state that it is “undesirable for courts to censure police officers unless strictly relevant to the case”. The Court asserted that the HC cannot pass directions dictating the judicial officers on how to write judgments.

Section 6 of Chapter 1, Part H of the Rules emphasizes that courts should only make censure remarks against police if they are strictly relevant to the case. The rule cites the lack of public support police faces in crime detection, and warns against courts magnifying minor irregularities into grave misconduct. It also provides that severe punishment is required if police misconduct, such as manufacturing evidence, is proven. Additionally, as per the Rule, if a Magistrate criticizes any government servant's conduct, a copy of the judgment must be sent to the District Magistrate, who will then forward it to the Registrar of the HC, referencing the Home Secretary's circular from April 15, 1936.

Justice Abhay Oka emphasized, “What Delhi High Court has done is – written directions in what manner judges should deliver judgements. Teaching the judges, guiding them in judicial academy is different from writing down that you should not do this, you should not do that. It is the discretion of the court.” He added that such directions cannot be passed either in judicial or administrative side.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a judicial officer's appeal against the Delhi HC's remarks on his observations regarding the conduct of two police officers in a theft case.

The case arose from certain observations made by the petitioner/Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) against two police officials (IO/SHO) who investigated a theft case. The ASJ had remarked that there was “something fishy” on the part of the police regarding the investigation of the case and added that the DCP concerned appeared to have “brushed the matter under the carpet.” The ASJ directed an inquiry into the police officials, including one by a DCP level official outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station.

The Delhi HC set aside the impugned directions and observations, opining that the ASJ had “excessively exaggerated” the issue. The HC noted that the ASJ's remarks were "summary in nature, penal in its scope, stigmatizing in its tone and tenor and beyond the ken of expected judicial conduct."

The HC further observed that the ASJ overreached in ordering a second inquiry from a DCP level official outside the jurisdiction of Police Station South, unnecessarily disbelieving the report of the concerned DCP. The direction was deemed “completely exaggerated and wholly unnecessary,” merely impinging on the administrative time of the police authorities for something already addressed and trivial.

The HC called the ASJ's directions “disproportionate” and “a serious overreach into administrative functions of police authorities,” prompting the ASJ to move the Supreme Court.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Delhi HC in the judicial officer's special leave petition. The Delhi HC has previously held that judicial strictures must be passed with utmost circumspection, as criticism may have a devastating effect on the professional careers of officers.

During the proceedings today, Justice Oka questioned the reason behind passing such remarks against a judicial officer, stating, “If in 'n' number of cases while dealing with criminal cases the judicial officer finds the conduct of police objectionable, he is bound to say that.”

When Justice Oka inquired whether the petitioner is seeking to expunge the remarks against him, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner is also challenging Delhi HC's Practice Directions. “To what extent can I come every time to this court if there is a High Court Practice Direction which says that I cannot make even a single remark against police?”, the counsel emphasised. He submitted that in an earlier order of the HC, similar remarks by the petitioner against the police were expunged.

Justice Oka responded, “High Court can't dictate a judicial officer not to make any remark. How can High Court issue such a Practice Direction?”

The petitioner's counsel argued that the HC's Practice Directions grant absolute immunity to the police officers.

Justice Oka remarked, “We will have to say this is wrong. This has to be gone. This has to be withdrawn.”

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules empower judicial officers to pass strictures against the police in appropriate cases. Justice Oka clarified, “This is if strictures are passed, what action is to be taken. That doesn't empower you to pass strictures.”

The counsel insisted that it presumes the power to pass strictures. Justice Oka didn't accept this submission, remarking, “If judicial officer makes such a submission, we will have to say something about judicial officer also. Lawyers we can understand. Judicial officers must know where to stop and where to show restraint.”

The court listed the case on August 8, 2024 at the top of the list.

Justice Oka agreed with the petitioner's counsel's submission that as per Supreme Court judgments, it is incumbent upon the courts to pass remarks in cases of defective investigation and dereliction of duty.

Advocate Sagar Suri appeared for the petitioner.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 388-389/2024

Case Title – Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar