Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb False And Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers

The Supreme Court today issued directions on how High Courts should deal with complaints made against judicial officers of the district judiciary, drawing a distinction between false and frivolous complaints and those found to be prima facie true.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan held that strict action must be taken against persons found to be filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints against members of the district judiciary. The Court said that such action should include, in appropriate cases, initiation of proceedings for contempt of court.

The Court further directed that where the person filing or engineering a false complaint is a member of the Bar, the High Court should, apart from initiating contempt proceedings, make a reference to the Bar Council concerned for disciplinary action.

“In case the person filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, apart from proceeding with contempt reference to the Bar Council be made for disciplinary action. Bar Councils on receipt of such reference to dispose of the matter expeditiously.”

At the same time, the Court emphasised that there should be no tolerance where allegations of misconduct against a judicial officer are found to be prima facie true. It held that in such cases, prompt disciplinary proceedings must be initiated and no leniency should be shown if the charges are ultimately established.

The Court also clarified that in appropriate cases where criminal prosecution of a judicial officer is warranted, the High Court should not hesitate to have such prosecution initiated. It observed that this is necessary to weed out black sheep who sully the fair name of the judiciary.

“Equally, if the complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is found to be prima facie true, prompt action to initiate disciplinary proceedings should be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established. Not only this, in appropriate cases where criminal prosecution is warranted against the judicial officer the High Court should not hesitate to have the same initiated. That is the only way to weed out black sheep sullying the fair name of the judiciary”, the Court held.

However, the Court added that High Courts should be careful in initiating proceedings against judicial officers, and should not initiate such proceedings merely based on suspicion.

“It goes without saying that corruption in the Judiciary at any level is intolerable as corruption severely undermines the core of the administration of justice and erodes public trust in the rule of law. However, the High Court which is vested with the supervisory control keep in mind the judicial officer of the district judiciary works mostly in a charged atmosphere. A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings”, the Court stated.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Headnote

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings against Judicial Officers – Removal from service based solely on judicial orders – Permissibility – Appellant, a judicial officer with 27 years of unblemished service, was removed for granting bail in four cases under the M.P. Excise Act without expressly mentioning the "twin conditions" of Section 59-A - Held: Merely because a judicial order is wrong, erroneous, or fails to refer to a statutory provision, it cannot be the basis for disciplinary action unless there is evidence of corrupt motive or extraneous consideration - The High Court must exercise great caution and protect honest officers from unmerited onslaughts based on motivated complaints. Order of removal set aside with full back wages.

Judicial Independence – Fearless Trial Judiciary – Role of High Courts – Held that fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary - High Courts, while exercising supervisory control, must ensure that judicial officers are not put through the ordeal of disciplinary proceedings for mere errors of judgment - The "lurking fear" of administrative action often leads trial judges to shirk their responsibility in bail matters, resulting in the flooding of High Courts and the Supreme Court with bail applications.

Disciplinary Inquiry – Standard of Proof and Perversity – Administrative Law – Maxim “Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus” - While a Court does not typically act as an appellate authority over an inquiry report, it can interfere if the findings are "perverse," meaning no reasonable person would have reached such a conclusion on the available material – Held in this case, neither the complainant nor the stenographer (alleged to be the conduit for bribes) was examined, and the Public Prosecutor testified that the bail orders were proper- Held that Authorities should not ignore the long-standing reputation of an officer when evaluating a sudden allegation of "doubtful integrity" based on a mere hunch or hypothesis. [Relied on Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2020) 11 SCC 760; R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat (2016) 14 SCC 1; Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56; Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 370; Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2019) 10 SCC 640; Paras 29-40]