Integrity Allegations Against Judicial Officers Must Be Verified From Multiple Sources Before Adverse ACR Entry: AP High Court

In this regard, a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar observed,

“… it would be necessary to place a caution regarding the manner in which adverse remarks, especially relating to the integrity of Judges, are to be made in the Confidential Reports of Judicial Officers. It is an acknowledged fact that disgruntled employees, colleagues or litigants are prone to make allegations against Judicial Officers, especially on the integrity of the Judicial Officers. The Hon'ble Judges of this Court, have always balanced the need to investigate such complaints with the need to protect honest officers who are being targeted for having passed orders or Judgments which are not to the liking of the learned counsel appearing for parties or for the litigants themselves. It would only be appropriate that adequate precautions are taken before any adverse remarks are placed in the Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officers. One such protection could be to seek inputs from diverse sources and not to record an adverse entry, especially regarding the integrity of a judicial officer, based on a single input, even if the said input is from the Principal District Judge of the said District. It is the view of this Court, that unless such allegations are cross checked, it would not be safe to pass any adverse remark against the judicial officer.”

The observations were made in a case where a Junior Civil Judge (petitioner) had received adverse comments in his Annual Confidential Report of 2009 from the High Court, in which it was stated that— the work of the petitioner as a Junior Civil Judge was “average”, his integrity was doubtful and that he was erratic in judicial approach.

When the petitioner submitted a representation seeking the material on which the remarks were based, the High Court provided the material— which included work review statements, reports from the Principal District Judge and two disciplinary enquiries pending against him at that time. However, both the enquiries were later dropped, effectively exonerating the petitioner. While the petitioner requested a review and expunction of the remarks thereafter, the review was rejected, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court.

He argued that the adverse entry made in the Report was arbitrary, illegal and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. He contended that once the enquiries, upon which the adverse remarks were premised, resulted in his exoneration, there could not be further doubts on his integrity and that the Judge of the High Court could not have depended on a discreet enquiry to observe that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. He thus emphasised that a discreet enquiry cannot form the basis on which adverse remarks are recorded against any judicial officer while preparing Annual Confidential Reports.

However, the Court observed that it cannot substitute its own view for that of the review committee regarding the assessment of the petitioner's integrity, especially when such assessments may be based on discreet inquiries and subjective evaluation, where direct evidence may not always be available. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 30701/2013

Case Title: N.VIJAYA BABU v. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF A P

Click Here To Read/Download Order