Published on :
Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently said that judicial officers must exercise self-restraint and be cautious while making remarks or passing strictures against police officers or authorities since it could impact their confidence and work [Sanjay Kumar Sain vs State of NCT of Delhi].
Single-judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the courts must ensure that trials are conducted swiftly, fairly, and impartially, but they must also take into account the ground realities and position of law.
“Whenever the judicial officers are inclined to use harsh language against the investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities and devotion towards their duty, more control and caution must be exercised, since passing such comments may impair a person’s confidence, in addition to having a negative impact on his work and reputation,” Justice Sharma said in the order pronounced on March 1.
The loss of reputation suffered by an officer, the judge said, may not be restored even if the remarks are expunged by a higher court.
“Therefore, a thin wall that exists between the adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on part of authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind and perspective,” the bench added.
Regarding judicial utterances in the form of strictures, the bench said they are usually of disapproval and of dissent in certain cases.
“At times, the strictures stigmatize the concerned person without conviction. A recipient of stricture will have no option other than to seek expunction of stricture by way of either a judicial review or under the writ jurisdiction. 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,” the bench added.
Justice Sharma, therefore, batted for self-regulation amongst the judges, saying that will maintain the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
“Undoubtedly, judicial utterances on many occasions have the power to meaningfully bring about social and procedural changes for the welfare and betterment of the system. The judicial officers, 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 a fair judiciary, judicial self-restraint is an obligation that judiciary recognizes as created by and for themselves,” the bench emphasised.
The observations were made while disposing of a plea filed by one Sanjay Sain, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), North-East Delhi, who objected to certain observations made against him by a special court in a drug case.
The trial court in Karkardooma had found the DCP, who probed the case, to be insensitive and negligent.
The trial court had noted that while the accused were languishing in prison since 2019, the DCP had failed to specify as to when exactly the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Rohini would be giving the report on the voice samples of the accused in the said case.
The trial court had also expressed displeasure over the fact that the petitioner had failed to specify the exact weight of the contraband seized by the Delhi police.
The trial court had also summoned the petitioner-DCP to remain present in the court, however, he failed to do so as he was on poll duty owing to the recent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections.
Irked by the absence of the petitioner, the trial court had issued bailable warrants against him.
The petitioner then moved the High Court to quash the remarks against him and to recall the bailable warrants.
The High Court noted that the FSL in Rohini is an independent body and is not under the control of the DCP or even the Commissioner of Police of Delhi. It further noted that just after the Court asked for the FSL reports, the petitioner DCP had written request letters to the Director of FSL to submit the report at the earliest.
The High Court also took into account the fact that the weight of the contraband was mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet including the weight of contraband in each capsule and total weight of contraband in all the capsules seized from all the accused persons.
“Considering the details mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 15.01.2022 and various observations recorded in the orders dated 27.01.2022, 08.04.2022 and 10.06.2022, the learned Trial Court had already been made aware of the weight of the contraband seized in the present matter. Furthermore, an exemption application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 07.12.2022 on the ground that he was engaged in duties relating to Elections of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and some other urgent law and order situation,” the High Court said.
However, despite the same trial court did not allow the exemption application and proceeded to take coercive steps and issue bailable warrants against the petitioner, the Court said.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this action of the trial court was severe, the High Court held.
“The strictures have been passed against an officer, as in the present case a police officer who has been visited with judicial displeasure for want of carrying out burden of good governance of justice by ensuring speedy trial to the accused persons in judicial custody. The judicial officer had to remain conscious of the fact that passion for the same solely should not have guided him to pass such strictures to express judicial discontent more so since the delay in filing FSL was beyond his control,” the bench opined.
The bench, however, maintained that the strictures may be negligent but are not mala fide in nature.
“It is not to be forgotten by the courts that though the remedy of expunction of strictures is available to recipient of strictures, many a times, the strictures live on not only in public memory but also the memory of the recipient itself. Social memories tend to stigmatize the recipient, though the person passing strictures will enjoy judicial immunity due to his adjudicatory freedom of expression,” Justice Sharma underscored.
Indian judiciary has always followed the self-imposed judicial civility codes and have, through the judgments of Supreme Court as well as High Courts, flagged the issue of unwarranted judicial strictures which stigmatize and at times even penalize the recipient of strictures.
“This Court remains conscious of the fact that the judicial words, utterances, decisions help, ensure a society which follows rule of law. However, at times, unwarranted judicial utterances can wound and at times adversely affect or destroy the career and confidence of the recipient of strictures,” the bench observed.
Therefore, the bench expunged the observations of the trial court and cancelled the bailable warrants issued against the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa along with advocates Prabhav Ralli and Arun Kanwa appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya along with advocates Akshay Kumar and Abhijeet Kumar represented the State.
