Supreme Court Protects Judicial Officers from Disciplinary Action for Wrong Orders: Krishna Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (26 September 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
Can a judicial officer be penalized for making a mistake in a judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding the disciplinary actions against judicial officers. The Court emphasized that while corruption and misconduct should be strictly dealt with, disciplinary actions should not be initiated merely because a judicial officer has passed a wrong order. This judgment highlights the importance of an independent judiciary and the need to protect judicial officers from undue pressure. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

This case involves a disciplinary proceeding against a judicial officer, Sri Krishna Prasad Verma, who was serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The charges against him stemmed from two specific instances. First, he granted bail to three accused individuals despite the High Court previously rejecting their bail applications. Second, he closed the prosecution’s evidence in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The disciplinary authority and the High Court found the judicial officer guilty of misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The judicial officer then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer based on the findings of the enquiry officer. The High Court upheld the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed penalties on the judicial officer. The judicial officer then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests control of subordinate courts with the High Courts. The Court also discussed several precedents emphasizing the High Courts’ role as protectors and guardians of the judges under their administrative control. The Court highlighted that disciplinary actions should not be taken against judicial officers merely for passing wrong orders, unless there is evidence of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous influences.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on whether the judicial officer’s actions constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

• Appellant’s (Judicial Officer) Submissions:
  • The judicial officer argued that he had granted bail in the first instance because the Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the bail applications.
  • He contended that he had corrected his mistake by cancelling the bail when it was brought to his notice that he had not considered the High Court’s previous orders.
  • Regarding the NDPS case, he stated that he had given 18 adjournments for the prosecution to produce witnesses and closed the evidence only after the Public Prosecutor stated that he was unable to produce them.
  • He argued that there was no evidence of any extraneous consideration or corrupt motive behind his actions.
• Respondent’s (State of Bihar and Others) Submissions:
  • The State argued that the judicial officer had acted improperly by granting bail despite the High Court’s previous rejection of bail applications.
  • They contended that the judicial officer had shown undue haste in closing the prosecution’s evidence in the NDPS case, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
  • They argued that the judicial officer had not taken appropriate steps to ensure the presence of witnesses in the NDPS case.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that he corrected his mistake by cancelling the bail and that the Public Prosecutor’s statement led to the closure of evidence in the NDPS case was a novel approach to defend against the charges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the judicial officer were justified based on the charges framed against him.
2. Whether the actions of the judicial officer amounted to misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
3. Whether the High Court had properly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Ishwar Chand Jain Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and another (1988) 3 SCC 370:* The Court used this authority to underscore the High Court’s duty to protect judicial officers and avoid disciplinary actions on trivial matters.
• Union of India & Ors. Vs. A.N. Saxena (1992) 3 SCC 124:* This authority was cited to support the principle that disciplinary action should not be initiated merely for a wrong order.
• Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56:* The Court used this to reinforce that a wrong order does not warrant disciplinary proceedings.
• P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 491:* This was cited to emphasize that a different view on facts is not a ground for misconduct.
• Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 247:* The Court used this to reiterate that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely for wrong judgments.
• Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India:* This was cited to highlight that a wrong exercise of jurisdiction or mistake of law is not a basis for disciplinary action.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the independence of the judiciary, especially at the district level. The Court emphasized that judicial officers should not be subjected to disciplinary actions for mere errors in judgment. The Court highlighted that the High Court should act as a guardian and protector of the district judiciary. The Court also noted the lack of evidence of any extraneous influence or malafide intent on the part of the judicial officer.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily focused on the legal principles regarding disciplinary actions against judicial officers, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of the judicial officer’s actions, but rejected them. The Court found that the judicial officer’s actions, while possibly incorrect, did not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis of a wrong order. The Court also noted that the judicial officer had corrected his mistake in the first charge and that the Public Prosecutor was responsible for producing witnesses in the second charge.

The Court’s decision was based on several key reasons:

• The need to protect the independence of the judiciary.
• The lack of evidence of any extraneous influence or corrupt motive.
• The fact that the judicial officer had corrected his mistake in the first charge.
• The fact that the Public Prosecutor had stated his inability to produce witnesses in the second charge.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In a country, which follows the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary.”
• “It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.”
• “If in every case where an order of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear of writing a judgment so as not to face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot act independently or fearlessly.”

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions in the judgment. The decision was unanimous by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• Judicial officers should not face disciplinary action for mere errors in judgment.
• High Courts have a responsibility to protect the independence of the district judiciary.
• Disciplinary proceedings should only be initiated when there is clear evidence of misconduct, corruption, or extraneous influences.
• Wrong orders should be recorded on the administrative side and considered for career progression.

This judgment reinforces the importance of an independent judiciary and provides much-needed protection to judicial officers at the district level. It clarifies that while accountability is necessary, disciplinary actions should not be based on mere errors in judgment unless there is evidence of misconduct or corruption.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judicial officer be given all consequential benefits on or before 31.12.2019. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers should not be initiated merely for passing a wrong order, unless there is evidence of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous influences. This case reinforces the previous position of law that protects judicial officers from disciplinary actions for errors in judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar is a significant ruling that protects the independence of the judiciary. The Court held that disciplinary actions against judicial officers should not be initiated merely because they have passed a wrong order. The Court emphasized that the High Courts must act as guardians of the subordinate judiciary and protect them from undue pressure and frivolous complaints. The judgment provides clarity on the circumstances under which disciplinary actions against judicial officers are justified and reinforces the importance of an independent and fearless judiciary.