Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asserted that being a judicial officer does not strip an individual of their fundamental rights, including the right to address personal matters and support their family.

"Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards," the court said.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while denying bail to a man accused of deceiving a woman, the sister of a judicial officer, into marrying an already married man whom she met on a matrimonial website.

The accused, a teacher linked to the primary offender, allegedly misrepresented the marital status of the main accused, who had shown interest in 1411 profiles while being married to another woman.

The court noted that the applicant misled the complainant and her family, convincing them of the main accused's unmarried status and falsely affirming that he had lost his parents.

While rejecting bail, the court expressed displeasure over the applicant's argument that the complainant's brother being a judicial officer influenced the registration of the FIR and the denial of bail. It condemned the inclusion of details about the judicial officer, despite a court order against such disclosures.

The judge emphasized that the complainant, as the sister of a judicial officer, possesses equal rights to seek justice without discrimination. "Even if the complainant is the sister of a judicial officer, the same does not mean that just by being the sister of a judicial officer, she has lesser rights compared to other complainants in a criminal case to stand up and fight for herself and seek justice from the courts of law," it opined.

It highlighted the potential injustice if a victim is denied opportunities due to familial relations with a judicial officer, stating that fundamental and private rights should not be sacrificed as mere occupational hazards.

"It will be a travesty of justice in case the victim fails to get justice for herself or is denied equal opportunities to seek justice only because one of her biological relatives is a judicial officer and is dispensing justice to others," the court said.

The court asserted, "A judicial officer, by virtue of being a judicial officer, does not waive his fundamental rights available to all other citizens, including social and private rights to look after and stand by his family." It affirmed the right of a judicial officer to stand by their family as a biological sibling and take action against those harming or defaming the family.

Regarding the accused's repeated disclosure of the judicial officer's identity, the court stated that it exploited a judicial system where officers rarely speak openly due to reputational concerns. It cautioned against perceiving the judiciary as fragile, taking sides, or unjustifiably suspecting interference based on one's occupation.

The court dismissed the bail plea and issued directions to the registry. "With regard to the present case, the registry is directed to immediately mask the name of the victim and the judicial officer in the annexure "E and particulars about the judicial officer mentioned in para 6 of the grounds of the present bail application," the court ordered. 

The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for March 5, 2024.

Case Title: Mohit Pilania v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.