Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 22, 2024, said that personal criticism of judges or recording findings on the conduct of judges in judgments must be avoided, as judges work in stress and every judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors.

"In a given case, after writing several sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise. The higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the judicial officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said.

The court said the judges are human beings and all human beings are prone to committing mistakes. "To err is human. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened," the bench said.

It pointed out in the year 2002, in the case of “All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors (2002), the top court passed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million.

"However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased. The judges have to work under stress. Every Judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Sonu Agnihotri, serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service.

He sought to expunge adverse findings and remarks recorded against him in the impugned order of March 2, 2023 by the Delhi High Court. The appellant moved an application before the Delhi High Court for expunging the remarks. By an order of May 9, 2023, the said application was rejected by the High Court.

He contended that due to the adverse remarks against him in the first impugned order, his unblemished career as a judicial officer was likely to be adversely affected.

The apex court noted that the High Court observed that the appellant ‘embarked on an inexorable quest’ and "this ought to have been avoided". Further, the bench said paragraph 14 contained advice to the appellant to be circumspect and to exercise care and caution in the future.

"The High Court could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers. That can only be done on the administrative side in an appropriate case," the bench said.

The court also said that describing the appellant's approach as 'judicial misadventure' was also "improper".

The bench, however, made it clear that the direction to expunge the remarks made against the appellant would not bind the administrative side of the High Court.

The apex court said the courts higher in the judicial hierarchy were invested with appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the courts that are judicially subordinate to it.

The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC to correct the errors committed by the courts which are judicially subordinate to it, the bench said.

"We must hasten to add that no court can be called a “subordinate court”. Here, we refer to “subordinate” courts only in the context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction. The superior courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous orders and expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations," the bench said.

While doing so, the superior courts can legitimately criticise the orders passed by the trial courts or the appellate courts by giving reasons, the court said.

"There can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by using strong language. However, such observations must always be in the context of errors in the impugned orders. While doing so, the courts have to show restraint, and adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of the judicial officer should be avoided. There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a judicial officer. The first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided," the bench said.

The court said that the High Court judges, after noticing improper conduct on the part of the judicial officer, can always invite the attention of the Chief Justice on the administrative side to such conduct.

"Whenever action is proposed against a judicial officer on the administrative side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his position. But if such personal adverse observations are made in a judgment, the judicial officer’s career gets adversely affected," the bench said.

The appellant judge had made certain adverse observations about the conduct of the police officers and issued certain directions while denying an accused anticipatory bail in a case lodged under Sections 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

On a plea by the Investigating Officer and SHO, the High Court's single judge bench expunged all remarks against the police officers and made observations against the appellant judge.

The appellant judge also made the Delhi High Court a party.

The High Court had placed reliance on Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I of Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders. The Rule provides that it is undesirable for courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant to the case. It also provides that there should not be any over alacrity on the part of judicial officers to believe anything and everything against the police.

"Prima facie, we were of the view that this Rule interferes with the discretion available to the judges. It is unnecessary for us now to deal with Rule 6 as a document has been placed on record by the ASG appearing for the High Court that the Rule Committee of the High Court has approved the deletion of Rule 6 and the approval of the Governor has been sought for the deletion," the bench said.

Case Title: Sonu Agnihotri Vs Chandra Shekhar & Ors