Delhi High Court Raps Litigant Seeking FIR Against Judge Over Alleged Forgery In Judicial Order

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rapped a litigant who filed a writ petition seeking registration of FIR against a judicial officer over allegations of committing forgery in a judicial order.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia also took exception to the litigant's conduct of uploading the video of proceedings on YouTube.

The Court cautioned the litigant and asked him not to put the video on any YouTube channel or social media. This was after Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari appearing for the State as well as the Delhi Police took objection of the litigant's conduct.

At the outset, the Bench told the litigant's counsel that as per a Supreme Court judgment, permission of Chief Justice has to be sought on administrative side for seeking FIR registration against a sitting judge, and a writ petition cannot be filed on judicial side on the issue.

“If you have to file FIR irrespective of the conduct of the judicial officer, you have to seek permission of the Chief Justice. This is to be done on the administrative side, not judicial side,” CJ remarked.

Justice Karia added: “You have filed the petition. It is bench of two judges. The expression used (in the judgment) is Chief Justice. Not a bench of Chief Justice. You have to write a letter to the CJ seeking permission and the CJ has to then pass order on the administrative side. It cannot be a judicial order by a bench of CJ.”

As the litigant's counsel said that the complaint against the judge is pending on the administrative side since one year, the CJ remarked:

“Don't be confused. A complaint on the administrative side for taking action against the judicial officer is one thing. A simple application by you seeking permission of CJ to lodge FIR is different.”

Taking strong objection to the litigant's conduct, Bhandari said that the order against which forgery has been alleged has attained finality after it was challenged and finally decided by a single judge of the High Court. He submitted that the said fact has not been disclosed in the petition which amounts to concealment of material fact.

He also said that the litigant has uploaded video recording of the proceedings on YouTube which is prohibited under the High Court's Video Conferencing Rules.

“It requires action against him. He is interfering in the administration of judicial functioning,” he said, adding that the litigant's intention is to malign the judge in question.

As the litigant's counsel was still pursuing the matter, the CJ said:

“We cannot permit anybody to go scot free like this….. Will you understand simple things? Judicial process is initiated by lodging FIR. How FIR is lodged in terms of the SC judgment? It cannot be lodged for a judicial officer? Only with permission of CJ. CJ will give permission if sought on the administrative side, not by filing writ petition. Now we will not dispose of this petition because of the objections taken by Mr. Bhandari and Ms. Dubey (appearing for High Court administration). You will have ample of opportunities to rebut. You are a lawyer. Don't identify with your clients ever. That's a problem perhaps. I am very sorry to observe this. You need to be dispassionate while taking a plea before a court of law….We wish you are and we wish we are wrong.”

On the objection of video being posted on YouTube, the CJ told litigant's counsel:

“Why should you post such videos? This is an open court. You are making submissions in open court in presence of hundreds of lawyers. There a system provided by the State. Do you feel your grievances will not be heard here that you are uploading it on YouTube? We are only cautioning you. Don't put it on any YouTube channel or social media. Don't do all this. This is neither in your interest nor in interest of the institution. Try to conduct yourself in more sane manner. It is a very earnest request from court to you.”

The Court then asked the State, Delhi Police and High Court administration to file a compilation of documents within a week and listed the matter for hearing on next Wednesday.