Supreme Court expunges adverse remarks against Additional District Judge in judicial conduct case: Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (22 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 888
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a High Court make adverse remarks against a subordinate judicial officer in a judgment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need for restraint when commenting on the conduct of judicial officers. This case involved an Additional District and Sessions Judge (appellant) who sought to expunge adverse remarks made against him by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, was handling an anticipatory bail application for one Vikas Gulati. On 2nd January 2023, the appellant had rejected the anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala. On 21st January 2023, the appellant rejected Vikas Gulati’s bail application, making certain observations about the conduct of the police officers and issuing directions. The appellant noted discrepancies in the case diary maintenance by the Investigating Officer (IO) and raised concerns about the investigation process. Specifically, the appellant questioned why the IO did not arrest the co-accused despite opposing their bail, and why the updated status of cases against the accused was not mentioned in the police report. The appellant issued a show cause notice to the Station House Officer (SHO) and IO under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for providing false information and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to inquire into the matter. On 31st January 2023, finding the DCP’s report unsatisfactory, the appellant directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to conduct a vigilance inquiry.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The IO and SHO filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the Delhi High Court, seeking to expunge the remarks made against them in the orders dated 21st January 2023 and 31st January 2023 and to set aside the direction for a vigilance inquiry. The High Court, by its order dated 2nd March 2023, directed the expunging of all remarks against the IO and SHO and deleted the directions issued to the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police. The appellant then filed an application before the Delhi High Court to expunge remarks made against him in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the High Court’s order. This application was rejected on 9th May 2023, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of judicial conduct and the scope of powers of superior courts over subordinate courts. Key legal provisions include:

• Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of furnishing false information. The appellant had initially issued a show cause notice to the IO and SHO under this section, but later dropped it.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court, which the IO and SHO invoked to seek expunging of remarks made against them.

The legal framework also includes the principles of judicial independence and the need for restraint in judicial pronouncements, as highlighted in various Supreme Court judgments.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was justified in passing strict orders against the police officers due to flaws in the investigation and failure to update the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB) data.
• The counsel emphasized that the appellant had not pursued the show cause notice under Section 177 of the IPC, but merely pointed out the deficiencies in the investigation.
• The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi, K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P., and In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, to argue that the remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court’s order should be expunged.
• It was also submitted that the High Court’s decision relied on Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which has now been deleted.
• The counsel contended that the adverse remarks could negatively impact the appellant’s unblemished career as a judicial officer, citing Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal.

High Court’s Submissions:

• The High Court, through its Registrar General, relied on Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I of Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders, which discourages courts from making remarks censuring police officers unless strictly relevant to the case. This rule has since been deleted.
• The High Court had observed that the appellant had embarked on an “inexorable quest” and that his actions were a “judicial misadventure.”

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order should be expunged.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Principles of Judicial Conduct and Restraint:

• State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim [1963 SCC OnLine SC 22] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the need for judges to maintain freedom and independence while also exercising restraint and fairness in their opinions.
• In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer [(2001) 3 SCC 54] – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted the importance of judicial independence but also stressed the need for sobriety and calm in judicial actions and expressions. It also outlined the procedure for addressing misconduct of judicial officers.

On Expunging Remarks Against Judicial Officers:

• V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and Ors. [(2008) 17 SCC 538] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellant to support the argument that the remarks against him should be expunged.
• K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 540] – Supreme Court of India: This case was also relied upon by the appellant to argue for the expunging of adverse remarks.
• Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal [(2012) 8 SCC 263] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the adverse impact of remarks on a judicial officer’s career.

Other Authorities:

• All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 247] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the overburdened nature of the judiciary and the stress under which judges work.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim [1963 SCC OnLine SC 22]* regarding the need for judicial restraint and fairness.
• The Court reiterated the principles from In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer [(2001) 3 SCC 54]* on judicial independence and the proper procedure for addressing judicial misconduct.
• The Court agreed with the appellant’s reliance on V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and Ors. [(2008) 17 SCC 538]* and K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 540]* in the context of expunging adverse remarks.
• The Court acknowledged the adverse impact of remarks on a judicial officer’s career, as highlighted in Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal [(2012) 8 SCC 263]*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the dignity and reputation of judicial officers while ensuring that judicial pronouncements are made with restraint and fairness. The Court emphasized that while superior courts have the power to correct errors, they should avoid personal criticism of judicial officers in their judgments. The Court also considered the potential adverse impact of such remarks on the career and morale of subordinate judicial officers.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ordered the expunging of adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The High Court should have shown restraint and avoided personal criticism of the judicial officer.
• “It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made.”
• The remarks were unnecessary and could have serious implications on the career of the judicial officer.
• “The primary purpose of pronouncing a verdict is to dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties before it.”
• The Court noted that the High Court’s advice to the appellant to be circumspect and exercise caution should have been done on the administrative side, not in a judicial order.
• “Describing the appellant’s approach as a ‘judicial misadventure’ in paragraph 14 was also improper.”

The Court clarified that the expunging of remarks would not bind the administrative side of the High Court, which could still take action if deemed necessary.

Key Takeaways

• Superior courts must exercise restraint when making observations about the conduct of subordinate judicial officers.
• Personal criticism of judicial officers should be avoided in judicial pronouncements.
• Adverse remarks against judicial officers can have a significant negative impact on their careers.
• High Courts should address concerns about judicial conduct through administrative channels, not through judicial orders.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the expunging of the adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court’s order. However, the Court clarified that this direction would not bind the administrative side of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that superior courts must exercise restraint and avoid making personal criticisms of subordinate judicial officers in their judgments. While the superior courts have the jurisdiction to correct errors, they must do so without undermining the dignity and morale of the subordinate judiciary. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of judicial conduct and provides further clarity on the appropriate way to address concerns about the conduct of judicial officers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. emphasizes the importance of maintaining judicial independence and dignity. The Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional District Judge, highlighting the need for restraint and fairness when commenting on the conduct of judicial officers. This judgment serves as a reminder that while superior courts have the power to correct errors, they must do so in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judicial system and protects the careers of judicial officers.

Category

Parent Category: Judicial Conduct

Child Categories:

• Judicial Independence
• Adverse Remarks
• Subordinate Judiciary
• High Court
• Supreme Court
• Section 177, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 177, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Categories:

• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.?

A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should expunge adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional District Judge in a judgment.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court expunge the remarks?

A: The Supreme Court expunged the remarks because they were deemed unnecessary, improper, and could adversely affect the judicial officer’s career. The Court emphasized the need for restraint and fairness in judicial pronouncements.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for the judiciary?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary. It clarifies that while superior courts have the power to correct errors, they should avoid personal criticism of judicial officers in their judgments.

Q: What does the judgment mean for subordinate judicial officers?

A: The judgment provides reassurance to subordinate judicial officers that their dignity and careers will be protected from unwarranted criticism by higher courts. It also emphasizes that concerns about judicial conduct should be addressed through administrative channels.

Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment?

A: The key takeaway is that superior courts must exercise restraint and fairness when making observations about the conduct of subordinate judicial officers, and personal criticism should be avoided in judicial pronouncements.