2024 (11) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian Laws

Superior courts must limit criticism to errors, avoiding personal remarks on subordinate judges under judicial conduct rules.

SONU AGNIHOTRI Versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.

SONU AGNIHOTRI Versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS. - 2024 INSC 888 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether adverse judicial remarks and observations made against a judicial officer in a judicial order are justified and maintainable. The scope and limits of judicial criticism of subordinate judicial officers by superior courts in judicial pronouncements. The applicability and relevance of procedural rules (such as Rule 6 of the High Court Rules and Orders) regarding judicial remarks against police officers. The propriety of issuing directions against police officers and senior police officials based on observations made in bail proceedings. The balance between judicial independence and restraint in passing adverse comments on public servants, particularly subordinate judicial officers. The appropriate forum and procedure for addressing alleged misconduct or improper conduct of subordinate judicial officers. The consequences and impact of adverse judicial remarks on the career and reputation of judicial officers. The power and discretion of superior courts to expunge unwarranted or inappropriate observations in judicial orders under inherent jurisdiction and statutory provisions. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy and Limits of Judicial Remarks Against Subordinate Judicial Officers Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relied extensively on the principles laid down in the case concerning judicial officers' conduct, where it was held that while judges must be fearless and bold in administering justice, their expressions must maintain sobriety, moderation, and restraint. The Court referred to the decision that emphasized judicial independence alongside the need for judicial pronouncements to be judicial in nature and avoid unnecessary personal criticism. The Court also cited the principle that judicial remarks should be limited to what is necessary for deciding the controversy and should not extend to gratuitous personal observations. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that superior courts have appellate, revisional, and supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, which includes the power to correct erroneous orders and express criticism of errors. However, there is a clear distinction between criticizing erroneous judicial orders and criticizing the personal conduct or character of judicial officers. The latter is generally inappropriate in judicial pronouncements and should be avoided to prevent harm to the judicial officer's dignity and career. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order contained adverse remarks describing the appellant's conduct as an 'inexorable quest' and a 'judicial misadventure,' which were found to be summary, penal in scope, stigmatizing, and beyond the expected judicial conduct. The Court found these remarks unnecessary and capable of serious implications on the judicial officer's career. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles that judicial officers should not be condemned unheard and that personal criticism should be avoided in judicial orders. It held that such observations, if required, should be dealt with on the administrative side through confidential communications to the Chief Justice, allowing the judicial officer to explain and defend their conduct. Treatment of competing arguments: While the appellant contended that the remarks were justified based on flaws in police investigation and non-compliance with police procedures, the Court distinguished between legitimate judicial criticism of police conduct and unwarranted personal remarks against a judicial officer. The Court acknowledged the need for judicial independence but emphasized restraint in personal observations. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the adverse remarks against the judicial officer in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order were unwarranted, beyond the scope of judicial propriety, and should be expunged. It clarified that such expungement does not preclude administrative action if warranted. Issue 2: Power and Procedure to Expunge Unwarranted Judicial Remarks and Directions Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and constitutional supervisory powers under Article 227 to expunge uncalled-for observations in judicial orders. It relied on precedent emphasizing that superior courts can set aside erroneous orders and expunge unwarranted remarks, especially when such remarks affect the dignity of judicial officers. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between permissible criticism of judicial errors and impermissible personal criticism. It underscored that expunging remarks is a legitimate exercise to protect judicial officers from undue harm. The Court noted that the first impugned order had expunged remarks against police officers and set aside directions for inquiry against them, which the appellant did not challenge. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's grievance was confined to adverse remarks made against him personally. The Court found that the High Court's deletion of remarks against police officers and cancellation of inquiry directions was proper. However, the adverse remarks against the judicial officer were excessive and required expungement. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of judicial restraint and the need to protect judicial dignity by ordering expunction of the remarks against the appellant. It clarified that such expungement does not bind the administrative side of the High Court, which may still take appropriate action. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant sought expungement of remarks based on precedent and the deletion of Rule 6 (which had restricted judicial remarks against police). The Court noted the deletion of Rule 6 but did not find it necessary to decide on it further. The State did not dispute the legal principles but assisted the Court in understanding the law. Conclusions: The Court allowed the appeals and expunged the adverse remarks against the judicial officer in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order. The Court emphasized that expungement protects judicial independence and dignity without affecting administrative disciplinary processes. Issue 3: Judicial Remarks Against Police Officers and Directions for Inquiry Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the High Court Rule 6 (now deleted), which discouraged judicial officers from making remarks censuring police officers unless strictly relevant. The Court also noted the general principle that judicial officers should exercise caution in making adverse remarks against public servants. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant had made adverse observations about the Investigating Officer (IO) and Station House Officer (SHO) regarding investigation irregularities and non-compliance with police procedures. The High Court expunged these remarks and set aside directions for inquiry against police officers, considering them unnecessary and potentially harmful. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's observations included suspicions about police conduct, failure to maintain case diaries properly, and failure to update crime records. The High Court found these observations to be excessive and ordered their deletion. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the High Court's deletion of remarks and directions against police officers was proper. The appellant did not challenge this part of the order, and the Court found no reason to interfere. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that his observations were justified and necessary to ensure proper investigation and police accountability. The Court acknowledged the appellant's role but emphasized that judicial remarks must be strictly relevant and not overreach. Conclusions: The Court upheld the deletion of remarks and directions against police officers and noted that judicial officers should exercise caution in making adverse observations against public servants unless strictly necessary. Issue 4: Impact of Adverse Judicial Remarks on Judicial Officers and the Need for Restraint Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to established principles regarding the dignity and independence of judicial officers, the harmful effects of adverse remarks in judicial orders, and the availability of administrative remedies for addressing judicial misconduct. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court highlighted five reasons why personal adverse observations against judicial officers in judgments should be avoided: violation of natural justice, irreparable harm to reputation, emboldening litigants against the judge, forcing judicial officers to become litigants, and the possibility of occasional errors by otherwise upright judges. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the appellant's unblemished career and the potential adverse impact of the remarks on his reputation and career advancement. It emphasized the human aspect of judges working under pressure and the inevitability of occasional errors. Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the need for judicial accountability with the protection of judicial dignity and independence. It underscored that administrative channels exist to address conduct issues without public judicial censure. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant sought protection from adverse remarks, relying on precedents and the principle of judicial independence. The Court agreed and stressed the importance of restraint in judicial criticism. Conclusions: The Court reaffirmed the principle that judicial officers should be shielded from unwarranted adverse remarks in judicial orders to preserve their dignity and independence, and that administrative procedures should be used to address conduct issues. Issue 5: Role of Administrative Side of the Judiciary in Handling Judicial Officer Conduct Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the constitutional scheme where High Courts exercise administrative, judicial, and disciplinary control over subordinate judiciary. It cited the recommended practice of handling judicial officer conduct through confidential administrative proceedings rather than public judicial orders. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the High Court's administrative side is the appropriate forum to address conduct issues of subordinate judicial officers, allowing for natural justice and opportunity to explain. Public judicial orders should avoid condemning judicial officers unheard. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that while the impugned judicial order contained adverse remarks, the better course would have been to communicate concerns confidentially to the Chief Justice or appropriate administrative authority. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the High Court's administrative side may still take appropriate action notwithstanding the expungement of remarks from the judicial order. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant contended that the judicial remarks were harmful and unnecessary, and the Court agreed that administrative processes are preferable for such matters. Conclusions: The Court underscored the importance of using the administrative side for disciplinary or conduct-related matters concerning judicial officers, preserving the dignity of judicial orders and independence of judges.