Criminal Proceedings Against Sitting Judge Can’t Be Initiated Via Writ: Delhi High Court Questions Plea Seeking FIR Against Judicial Officer

The Delhi High Court recently raised serious concerns over a petition filed by a litigant seeking permission to register a First Information Report against a judicial officer on allegations of forgery in a court order. Court made it clear that such relief cannot be sought through judicial proceedings and must follow the established administrative procedure.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia emphasised that any request to initiate criminal proceedings against a sitting judge is governed by a settled legal framework laid down by the Supreme Court of India. As per this framework, prior approval of the chief justice of the high court on the administrative side is a mandatory precondition before an FIR can be registered.

The bench categorically observed that such permission cannot be granted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved person is to submit a representation before the Chief Justice, who would examine the matter administratively and decide whether sanction should be granted.

Reinforcing this distinction, court noted that filing a complaint and seeking approval for registration of an FIR are two separate legal steps. Even where a complaint is pending, it does not automatically authorise the lodging of an FIR. Court stated that the process requires independent consideration and approval at the administrative level.

The matter arose from allegations made by the petitioner that a judge of the district judiciary had “concocted” an order passed in April 2024 to favour the opposing party. The petitioner further alleged that despite objections being raised, the judicial officer continued to hear the case, thereby aggravating the grievance.

However, the high court expressed strong reservations about the maintainability of the petition itself. It indicated that the writ petition appeared to be an attempt to bypass the established safeguards meant to protect judicial independence and ensure that allegations against judges are scrutinised through an appropriate mechanism.

Court also took exception to the conduct of the litigant in uploading a video recording of the trial court proceedings on YouTube. It warned that court proceedings are not to be casually recorded or disseminated on social media platforms without authorisation. Such actions, the court indicated, raise concerns about the sanctity and decorum of judicial proceedings.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the State and the Delhi Police opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. It was pointed out that the order in question had already been challenged through appropriate legal channels, thereby casting doubt on the bona fides of the present plea.

Additionally, counsel representing the high court administration informed the bench that the petitioner had previously made similar allegations against judicial officers, which had been placed before the vigilance committee for examination. This background further weighed with the court while assessing the nature of the present petition.

Taking note of these submissions, court refrained from granting any immediate relief and instead directed the concerned authorities to place relevant details on record. The matter is scheduled to be examined further in the coming week.

The proceedings underscore the judiciary’s cautious approach in dealing with allegations against judges, balancing the need for accountability with the imperative of protecting judicial independence. By reiterating that criminal action against judicial officers requires prior administrative approval, court reaffirmed the procedural safeguards designed to prevent misuse of the criminal process while ensuring that genuine grievances are addressed through the proper institutional channels.

With Inputs From: TOI