Delhi High Court Denies Judicial Officer’s Prayer For Expunging Remarks Against His Order, Says Remarks Were Qua Contents Of Order And Not Him

The Delhi High Court has declined a judicial officer’s prayer for expunging/deleting remarks allegedly made against him in a judgment passed by the High Court.Pithily put, writ petitions were initially filed by an SHO, seeking inter-alia deletion of remarks allegedly made against him by the then ASJ (applicant) in a common order dated September 6, 2022. The said petitions were allowed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on November 22, 2022, observing that unwarranted remarks had been made by the applicant (judicial officer) against the petitioner (SHO).In consequence, certain remarks and directions passed by the applicant qua the petitioner were expunged/deleted. It was underlined that “judicial strictures against anyone need to be passed with utmost circumspection”.Significantly, Justice Sharma had ordered the judgment to be circulated for the benefit of all judicial officers and Director (Academics) Delhi Judicial Academy. In respect of this judgment, the applicant filed applications seeking expunging/deleting of certain remarks.Advocates for the applicant argued before Justice Sharma that certain observations made by the Bench in the impugned judgment were “in the nature of strictures against the applicant”. It was further pointed out that the circular issued for the purpose of circulating judgment dated November 22, 2022 mentioned the name of the applicant as one of the addressees.After hearing the contentions, Justice Sharma explicated that the observations made in the impugned judgment neither referred to the judicial competence of the applicant nor to his personal capacity as a judicial officer. Rather, they only related to the contents of the impugned order. “…this Court was highly conscious of its duty of itself not indulging in passing any disparaging or sweeping remarks”, the court said.It was added that in view of the judicial hierarchical system prevailing in the country, a higher court could correct a lower court. But, if applications such as at hand were filed, this task would become impossible.The court further opined that,“…the process of challenging of an order when placed before a higher court does not bring into question, in majority of cases, the judge passing the order, but the order passed by judge… It is not the judge who is in question, scrutiny, or adjudication, rather the order passed by the judge...even the orders of this Court are challenged and at times set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is in line with judicial hierarchical system of our country”.Accordingly, the applicant’s prayer for expunging remarks contained in the impugned judgment was rejected for lack of merit. Be that as it may, the court was “disturbed” by the fact that the applicant’s name had been mentioned in the circular through which the impugned judgment was circulated. It was highlighted that as it was the judicial correctness of the impugned order that was in question, the Bench had not mentioned the applicant’s name even once in its own judgment. On the same principles, the circular/covering letter circulated should also not have contained the applicant’s name.Keeping in view the predicament of the applicant, the Bench held,“The discomfort felt in such circumstances cannot be undermined, and thus, this Court speaking for itself, directs that henceforth, any order directed to be circulated by this Bench/undersigned will not find mention of the concerned judicial officer’s name in the covering letter/circular circulated by the Registry to the District Courts and will refer to court number concerned as the judges preside over the courts, and the courts do not preside over the judges.”In closing, it expressed its hope for the judgment to act as a “healing balm” for the applicant, who had been hurt by the circulation of his name.Petitioner appeared in personMr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) alongwith Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Arjit Sharma, Advocates appeared for StateMr. Sagar Suri, Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Siddhant Nath and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocates appeared for the applicant/judicial officerCase Title: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Denies Judicial Officer’s Prayer For Expunging Remarks Against His Order, Says Remarks Were Qua Contents Of Order And Not Him

Debby Jain

Tags