TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court. The appellant moved an application before the Delhi High Court for expunging the remarks in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023. By an order dated 9th May 2023, the said application was rejected by the High Court. This is the second impugned order. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. The appellant was dealing with an application for anticipatory bail filed by one Vikas Gulati @ Vicky in FIR no. 221/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') with Defence Colony Police Station. The appellant had earlier rejected another application for anticipatory bail made by co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala on 2nd January 2023. The anticipatory bail application of Vikas Gulati came up before the appellant on 21st January 2023. By a detailed order, the appellant rejected the said application. While rejecting the application, the appellant made certain adverse observations about the conduct of the police officers and issued certain directions. The following are the observations made by the appellant in the order: "Perusal of police file shows that after case diary of 23.12.2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation be sought from CP, Delhi as to why SCRB record is not being updated till date despite direction of this court way back about one and half years ago in FIR no. 16/2018, PS Govind Puri for 31.01.2023 with direction to fix responsibility of concerned official for failure to comply with the same. It is notable that once, punishment of censure has already been awarded to defaulting SHOs and advisory has been issued to all defaulting ACPs as per explanation earlier called from CP, Delhi and reports furnished by DCP, South and DCP, South-East on behalf of CP, Delhi in another matter but still, there is no improvement which practically shows that even higher hierarchy in police has failed to instill discipline in Delhi Police. Let copy of order be sent to CP, Delhi for information and compliance. Let copy of order be sent to SHO PS Defence Colony for reference and compliance." (emphasis added) 4. Further order was passed by the appellant on 31st January 2023 in which it was observed that though the appellant had asked DCP (Deputy Commissioner of Police), South to hold an inquiry about the role of Investigating Officer (IO) as well as Station House Officer (SHO) of Defence Col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the petitioners in orders dated 21st January, 2023 and 31st January, 2023 passed by Ld., Additional Sessions judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Bail Appl. no. 202/2023 shall be expunged and all directions for conducting enquiries and explanations by the DCP or the Commissioner of Police shall be recalled and stand deleted from the said orders. 14......................................................... It is expected therefore that the Ld. ASJ would be circumspect and exercise care and caution in future before embarking on these judicial misadventures." 7. We must note here that the appellant applied for impleading the High Court of Delhi as a party through its Registrar General. The said application was allowed. A short reply was filed on behalf of the High Court by O.S.D. (Rules and Litigation) in which reliance was placed on Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I of Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders. Rule 6 provided that it is undesirable for courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant to the case. It also provided that there should not be any overalacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to believe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hal (2012) 8 SCC 263. 11. The learned counsel representing the State has assisted the Court by pointing out the law on this aspect. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 12. There are two parts of the first impugned order. The first part concerns expunging the observations and findings recorded by the appellant against the IO and SHO and setting aside the direction issued by the appellant to the Commissioner of Police for holding an inquiry. The second part concerns the adverse observations/remarks made in paragraphs 13 and 14. As far as the first part is concerned, the appellant cannot make any grievance. The appellant's grievance must be confined only to the second part. 13. In the case of State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim 1963 SCC OnLine SC 22, in paragraph 11 this Court held thus: "11. The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in which the learned Judge should have exercised his inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC in respect of the observations complained of by the State Government? If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and Magistrates must b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders are put in issue before him, and indulge in criticising and commenting thereon unless the conduct of an authority or subordinate functionary or anyone else than the parties comes of necessity under review and expression of opinion thereon going to the extent of commenting or criticising becomes necessary as a part of reasoning requisite for arriving at a conclusion necessary for deciding the main controversy or it becomes necessary to have animadverted thereon for the purpose of arriving at a decision on an issue involved in the litigation. This applies with added force when the superior court is hearing an appeal or revision against an order of a subordinate judicial officer and feels inclined to animadvert on him. The wisdom of a Superior Judge itching for making observations on a Subordinate Judge before ventilating into expression must pause for a moment and read the counsel of Cardozo- "Write an opinion, and read it a few years later when it is dissected in the briefs of counsel. You will learn for the first time the limitations of the power of speech, or, if not those of speech in general, at all events your own. All sorts of gaps and obstacles and impediments will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Secondly, the harm caused by such criticism or observation may be incapable of being undone. Such criticism of the judicial officer contained in a judgment, reportable or not, is a pronouncement in open and therefore becomes public. The same Judge who found himself persuaded, sitting on judicial side, to make observations guided by the facts of a single case against a Subordinate Judge may, sitting on administrative side and apprised of overall meritorious performance of the Subordinate Judge, may irretrievably regret his having made those observations on judicial side, the harming effect whereof even he himself cannot remove on administrative side. Thirdly, human nature being what it is, such criticism of a judicial officer contained in the judgment of a higher court gives the litigating party a sense of victory not only over his opponent but also over the Judge who had decided the case against him. This is subversive of judicial authority of the deciding Judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the observations by a judicial officer by filing an appeal or petition of his own reduces him to the status of a litigant arrayed as a party before the High Court or Supreme Court - a situ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by David Pannick (Oxford University Press Publication, 1987) a wholesome practise finds a mention suggesting an appropriate course to be followed in such situations: "Lord Hailsham explained that in a number of cases, although I seldom told the complainant that I had done so, I showed the complaint to the Judge concerned. I thought it good for him both to see what was being said about him from the other side of the court, and how perhaps a lapse of manners or a momentary impatience could undermine confidence in his decision." (emphasis added) 15. The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy are invested with appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the courts that are judicially subordinate to it. The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC to correct the errors committed by the courts which are judicially subordinate to it. We must hasten to add that no court can be called a "subordinate court". Here, we refer to "subordinate" courts only in the context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction. The superior courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous orders and....