Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Conduct Of Judges In Judgments Must Be Avoided: SC Expunges Adverse Remarks In Delhi HC Judgment Against ASJ
The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional District and Sessions Judge after observing that personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.
The Court allowed the Appeal for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against Sonu Agnihotri (Appellant), an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service, by the Delhi High Court. The High Court in its Judgment described the Appellant’s actions as a "judicial misadventure" after noticing improper conduct on the part of the Judicial Officer.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “As stated earlier, the higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.”
AOR Vivek Narayan Sharma represented the Appellant, while ASG S.V. Raju and Brijender Chahar appeared for the Respondents.
While dealing with an anticipatory bail application, the Appellant made observations about lapses in the police investigation and issued directions for inquiries into the police's conduct.
The High Court, upon a petition filed by the police under Section 482 of the CrPC, expunged the observations made by the Appellant against the police and quashed the directions for inquiries. However, the High Court also made the following against the Appellant- “As discussed above, 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…the Ld. ASJ would be circumspect and exercise care and caution in future before embarking on these judicial misadventures.”
The Supreme Court observed that the Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy have appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the Courts that are judicially “subordinate” to them. “The superior courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous orders and expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations,” it observed.
The Bench remarked that no Court can be called a “subordinate court” clarifying that reference to “subordinate” Courts was only in the context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court observed, “There can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by using strong language. However, such observations must always be in the context of errors in the impugned orders. While doing so, the courts have to show restraint, and adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer should be avoided. 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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 887)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sagar Suri, Kabir Sagar Ghosh, Shruti Priya Mishra, Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha and Adhiraj Wadhera; AOR Vivek Narayan Sharma
Respondents: ASG S.V. Raju and Brijender Chahar; AOR Neeraj Shekhar and Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Kshama Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Shreya Jain, Amit Sharma B, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Shiv Mangal Sharma and Nidhi Jaswal