Supreme Court expunges remarks against Additional District Judge in Delhi judicial service: Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (2024) INSC 888 (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 judicial officer in its judgment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning an Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Delhi, whose conduct was criticized by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court expunged the remarks made against the ASJ, emphasizing the need for restraint and caution when higher courts comment on the conduct of subordinate judicial officers. This case highlights the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary at all levels. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Delhi, was handling an anticipatory bail application for one Vikas Gulati. Earlier, the ASJ had rejected the anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala on 2nd January 2023. On 21st January 2023, the ASJ rejected Vikas Gulati’s bail application, making certain observations about the conduct of the police officers and issuing directions. The ASJ noted discrepancies in the police investigation, particularly regarding the failure to maintain proper case diaries and the decision to issue notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to the co-accused instead of arresting them. The ASJ also expressed concern over the lack of updated information in the previous involvement report of the accused.

Following these observations, the ASJ issued a show cause notice to the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Investigating Officer (IO) for providing false information and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South, to inquire into their roles. Additionally, the ASJ sought an explanation from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, regarding the non-updating of the State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB) data. On 31st January 2023, the ASJ noted that the DCP’s report did not address the concerns raised earlier and directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct a vigilance inquiry against the IO and SHO.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

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

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to correct errors committed by subordinate courts. The Supreme Court also considered the principles of judicial conduct and the need for restraint when making observations against judicial officers.

The following legal provisions were discussed in the judgment:

• Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel.
• Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of dishonestly receiving stolen property.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of furnishing false information.
• Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the procedure for issuing notices to persons against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that they have committed a cognizable offense.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the ASJ was justified in passing strict orders against the police officers due to flaws in the investigation and failure to update SCRB data.
• The counsel emphasized that the ASJ did not pursue criminal action against the IO and SHO under Section 177 of the IPC but only pointed out the deficiencies in the investigation.
• The appellant’s counsel 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, arguing that the remarks against the appellant in the High Court’s order should be expunged.
• The counsel submitted that the High Court’s reliance on its own decision in Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), which was based on Rule 6 of the High Court Rules (now deleted), was erroneous.
• The counsel argued that the adverse remarks in the High Court’s order could negatively impact the appellant’s unblemished career as a judicial officer.
• The counsel also cited the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal.

State’s Submissions:

• The counsel representing the State assisted the Court by pointing out the law on the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the adverse remarks made against the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Delhi High Court’s order should be expunged.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Supreme Court considered the principles of judicial conduct and the need for restraint when making observations against judicial officers. The Court distinguished between criticizing erroneous orders and criticizing a judicial officer personally.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities while deciding the case:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and expunged the adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Delhi High Court’s order. The Court emphasized that while higher courts have the power to correct errors in lower court orders, they must exercise restraint and avoid making personal criticisms of judicial officers. The Court clarified that the direction to expunge the remarks would not bind the administrative side of the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary, especially at the subordinate levels. The Court emphasized the need for higher courts to exercise restraint when commenting on the conduct of judicial officers. The Court noted that personal criticisms of judges in judgments can have a demoralizing effect and can harm their careers. The Court also highlighted that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard and that there are alternative administrative mechanisms for addressing misconduct.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The ratio of fact to law is 30:70, indicating that the court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations rather than the specific factual aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The Court emphasized that while higher courts have the power to correct errors made by lower courts, this power should not be used to make personal criticisms of judicial officers.
• The Court highlighted that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard, and there are alternative administrative mechanisms to address misconduct.
• The Court noted that the High Court’s remarks were not just corrections of errors in the ASJ’s order but were personal criticisms that could harm the ASJ’s career.
• The Court relied on precedents such as State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim and In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer to emphasize the need for judicial restraint and sobriety.
• The Court concluded that the remarks against the ASJ should be expunged to maintain the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made.”

“The primary purpose of pronouncing a verdict is to dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties before it.”

“The remarks made in a judicial order of the High Court against a member of subordinate judiciary even if expunged would not completely restitute and restore the harmed Judge from the loss of dignity and honour suffered by him.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Key Takeaways

• Higher courts should exercise restraint when making observations against judicial officers in their judgments.
• Personal criticisms of judicial officers should be avoided, and the focus should be on correcting errors in their orders.
• Judicial officers should not be condemned unheard, and there are alternative administrative mechanisms to address misconduct.
• The dignity and independence of the judiciary must be maintained at all levels.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order of the Delhi High Court be expunged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while higher courts have the power to correct errors in the orders of subordinate courts, they must exercise restraint and avoid making personal criticisms of judicial officers. This judgment reinforces the principles of judicial conduct and the need to maintain the dignity and independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous position on judicial restraint as laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim and In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (2024) INSC 888 underscores the importance of judicial restraint and the need to maintain the dignity of judicial officers. The Court’s expunging of the remarks made against the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) serves as a reminder that while higher courts have the power to correct errors, they must do so without resorting to personal criticisms. This judgment reaffirms the principles of judicial independence and fair treatment for all members of the judiciary.

Category:

• Judicial Conduct
  • Judicial Restraint
  • Independence of Judiciary
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Constitution of India
  • Article 227, Constitution of India
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 380, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 411, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 177, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. case?
A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should expunge adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ).

Q: Why did the Supreme Court expunge the remarks against the ASJ?
A: The Supreme Court expunged the remarks because it found them to be personal criticisms rather than corrections of errors in the ASJ’s order. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and the importance of maintaining the dignity of judicial officers.

Q: What is judicial restraint, and why is it important?
A: Judicial restraint refers to the principle that higher courts should exercise caution and avoid making personal criticisms of judicial officers. It is important to maintain the dignity and independence of the judiciary at all levels.

Q: What does the judgment mean for judicial officers?
A: The judgment means that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard, and higher courts should focus on correcting errors in their orders rather than making personal criticisms. It also highlights the importance of alternative administrative mechanisms to address misconduct.

Q: What is the significance of the fact that the High Court relied on a rule that was subsequently deleted?
A: The fact that the High Court relied on a rule that was subsequently deleted underscores the error in the High Court’s reasoning and the need for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?
A: The ratio decidendi is that while higher courts can correct errors in the orders of subordinate courts, they must exercise restraint and avoid making personal criticisms of judicial officers.