Judges Must Exercise Control And Caution While Passing Strictures Against Investigating Authorities: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that judges must exercise more control and caution while passing strictures against investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities since it may impair a person’s confidence and have a negative impact on work and reputation. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a thin wall that exists between adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind. “Though no restriction can be imposed upon judicial functioning except guidelines on judicial strictures and judicial precedents, since doing so will be against the independence of judiciary, however, a recipient of judicial stricture also cannot remain devoid of any remedies of redressal. It is the self regulation amongst the judges that maintains the institutional integrity of the judiciary,” the court said. While emphasizing that judicial utterances on many occasions have the power to bring about social and procedural changes for the welfare of the system, the court said that judges, however, have to note the difference between judicial findings and passing of strictures. “While there can be no doubt about the importance of judicial free speech, it being the hallmark of a free and fair judiciar, judicial self-restraint is an obligation that judiciary recognizes as created by and for themselves,” it said. Justice Sharma also said that it is not to be forgotten by courts that though the remedy of expunging strictures is available to the recipient, but many times, the strictures live not only in public memory but also in the memory of the recipient himself. “Social memories tend to stigmatize the recipient, though the person passing strictures will enjoy judicial immunity due to his adjudicatory freedom of expression,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police of North East Delhi challenging three orders passed by a sessions court making observations and remarks against him . The DCP also sought recall of the bailable warrants issued against him. Justice Sharma said that the trial court was displeased due to delay in trial and passed the impugned orders “without realizing that the cause behind the delay was not the DCP but the reasons beyond his control.”Accordingly, the court expunged the remarks passed against the DCP from the impugned orders and also set aside the Bailable Warrants issued against him. “Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges of Delhi who shall ensure the circulation of this judgment among all the Judicial Officers in their Courts for sensitization of Judicial Officers on this issue. A copy be also forwarded to Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy for taking note of its contents,” the court said. Title: SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHICitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192Click Here To Read Order

Judges Must Exercise Control And Caution While Passing Strictures Against Investigating Authorities: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags