Delhi High Court: Setting Aside Lower Court Orders Not a Reflection on Judge’s Competence

The Delhi High Court has held that the mere fact that an order passed by a trial court or even a High Court is stayed, modified or set aside by a higher court cannot be treated as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while deciding an application filed by a serving judicial officer seeking deletion of remarks contained in an earlier High Court judgment.

The application was filed in relation to a judgment in which the High Court had expunged certain adverse remarks made by the applicant while he was serving as an Additional Sessions Judge in the North-East District at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

The remarks had been made against police officials, including Sanjay Kumar Sain, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, during the course of proceedings before the trial court.

The judicial officer subsequently approached the High Court seeking recall of paragraphs 20 to 22 of the judgment in which the High Court had set aside those remarks.

According to the applicant, the recall application became necessary because the High Court’s judgment had later been cited in other cases, resulting in adverse observations against him.

He also submitted that the developments may have contributed to certain administrative consequences, including his transfer and a downgrade in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2023 from “A+” to “B+”.

While examining the plea, the High Court clarified that the expunging of remarks made by the judicial officer against the police officials was based purely on legal reasoning and should not be construed as a comment on the officer’s professional competence.

“Thus, to sum up the abovesaid, the fact that an order passed by a court, whether Trial Court or even High Court, is stayed, modified, or otherwise interfered with by a higher court such as High Court or Supreme Court respectively, cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order. Such judicial scrutiny is an inherent feature of the hierarchical structure of courts and forms part of the ordinary course of the adjudicatory process,” the Court said.

The Court also reiterated that the earlier judgment merely examined the correctness of the impugned orders and did not contain any personal remarks against the judicial officer.

“This Court reiterates that merely expunging the observations made against the petitioner – a police officer, by the present recall applicant – a judicial officer, cannot be treated as a reflection on the competence and integrity of the judicial officer in question or on the work done by him, as a judge, over the last several years,” the Court observed.

The High Court noted that in the earlier proceedings it had examined the reasons behind the delay in furnishing forensic reports in a criminal case.

It found that the delay in providing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was attributable to the laboratory itself and not to the police officers involved in the investigation.

The Court observed that the police officials had taken reasonable steps, such as issuing priority letters and regularly following up with the FSL authorities, and therefore could not be held responsible for the delay.

As a result, the High Court had earlier held that the adverse remarks passed by the trial court against the Deputy Commissioner of Police and other officers were unwarranted and liable to be expunged.

At the same time, the High Court acknowledged that the trial court had expressed concern over delays in the proceedings, particularly because the accused persons had remained in judicial custody for a considerable period.

According to the Court, the trial judge’s strict approach appeared to stem from this concern about delays in framing of charges.

However, the High Court held that attributing the delay in the forensic report to police officials was not justified in the circumstances.

The Court also explained the broader principle governing judicial review within the court hierarchy.

“It is a settled position in the judicial hierarchy in India that orders passed by the Trial Courts and District Courts are subject to scrutiny by the High Court, and similarly, orders of a Single Judge of the High Court are amenable to, at times, challenge before a Division Bench, and thereafter the orders of High Court can be assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the Court noted.

It added that whenever a higher court sets aside or modifies an order, it must record reasons explaining its decision. Such reasoning, the Court said, involves examining the legality and correctness of the earlier order.

However, recording these reasons should not automatically be interpreted as a criticism of the competence or integrity of the judicial officer concerned unless explicit observations to that effect are made.

In light of these findings, the High Court declined to recall or delete the relevant portions of its earlier judgment.

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sain vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Judgement: 01.03.2026