Top Court Expunges High Court's Remarks Against Judge, Calls For RestraintThe Supreme Court on Friday expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an additional district and sessions judge, saying the superior courts must exercise restraint while commenting on the personal conduct of judicial officers.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih granted the relief to Additional District and Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri and underscored the need for restraint by appellate courts.
"Judges are human and prone to errors. However, those errors should be corrected without personal criticism," Justice Oka, writing the 21-page judgement for the bench, said.
The additional district judge had moved the top court against the verdict of the high court, refusing to expunge the remarks that had described his judicial conduct as a "judicial misadventure" and advised him to exercise "care and caution." The remarks by the high court were made in connection with Agnihotri's orders on an anticipatory bail application in a theft case.
Justice Oka noted that while appellate or revisional courts have the authority to correct errors, such criticism must focus on the merits of the judicial orders and avoid personal censure.
"Adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on the errors in the judicial orders, not on the individual judge," the top court said.
The judgment emphasised that concerns about judicial officers' conduct should be brought to the Chief Justice's attention on the administrative side, ensuring procedural safeguards and protecting the officer's career.
"Strictures passed personally against a judicial officer can prejudice their career and cause unnecessary embarrassment," the court stated, adding, such issues should not be addressed in judicial orders.
The verdict said that the judge-to-population ratio remains inadequate despite efforts to improve it.
The case stemmed from observations recorded by the Delhi High Court against the ADJ in an order of March 2, 2023.
The high court had expunged remarks made by the ADJ against police officers and criticised the judge's handling of the anticipatory bail application of one Vikas Gulati, accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code.
In its impugned order, the High Court described the judge's approach as a "judicial misadventure" and advised him to exercise "care and caution" in future — a move the appellant argued could harm his judicial career.
The Supreme Court said, "Adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on correcting errors, not impugning the character or competence of judges." It said, "Remarks that affect the reputation of judicial officers can have far-reaching consequences on their careers, creating unnecessary prejudice and embarrassment." The top court reiterated that concerns about a judge's conduct should be addressed administratively through the Chief Justice rather than in judicial orders.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih granted the relief to Additional District and Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri and underscored the need for restraint by appellate courts.
"Judges are human and prone to errors. However, those errors should be corrected without personal criticism," Justice Oka, writing the 21-page judgement for the bench, said.
The additional district judge had moved the top court against the verdict of the high court, refusing to expunge the remarks that had described his judicial conduct as a "judicial misadventure" and advised him to exercise "care and caution." The remarks by the high court were made in connection with Agnihotri's orders on an anticipatory bail application in a theft case.
Justice Oka noted that while appellate or revisional courts have the authority to correct errors, such criticism must focus on the merits of the judicial orders and avoid personal censure.
"Adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on the errors in the judicial orders, not on the individual judge," the top court said.
The judgment emphasised that concerns about judicial officers' conduct should be brought to the Chief Justice's attention on the administrative side, ensuring procedural safeguards and protecting the officer's career.
"Strictures passed personally against a judicial officer can prejudice their career and cause unnecessary embarrassment," the court stated, adding, such issues should not be addressed in judicial orders.
The verdict said that the judge-to-population ratio remains inadequate despite efforts to improve it.
The case stemmed from observations recorded by the Delhi High Court against the ADJ in an order of March 2, 2023.
The high court had expunged remarks made by the ADJ against police officers and criticised the judge's handling of the anticipatory bail application of one Vikas Gulati, accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code.
In its impugned order, the High Court described the judge's approach as a "judicial misadventure" and advised him to exercise "care and caution" in future — a move the appellant argued could harm his judicial career.
The Supreme Court said, "Adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on correcting errors, not impugning the character or competence of judges." It said, "Remarks that affect the reputation of judicial officers can have far-reaching consequences on their careers, creating unnecessary prejudice and embarrassment." The top court reiterated that concerns about a judge's conduct should be addressed administratively through the Chief Justice rather than in judicial orders.