SC quashes HC’s negative remarks against Delhi judge and highlights judicial restraint | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday struck down the Delhi High Court’s negative observations against an additional district and sessions judge, saying the higher courts should exercise restraint in commenting on the personal conduct of bailiffs. 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 underlined the need for restraint by appellate courts.
“Judges are human and prone to errors. However, those errors must be corrected without personal criticism,” said Judge Oka, who wrote the 21-page judgment for the court.
The ADJ had moved the Supreme Court against the Supreme Court’s ruling and refused to quash comments that had described his conduct. judicial behavior as a ‘judicial accident’ and advised him to exercise ‘care and caution’.
The Supreme Court’s observations were made in connection with Agnihotri’s orders on an interim bail application in a theft case.
Justice Oka noted that while appellate or review courts have the power to correct errors, such criticism should focus on the merits of the court orders and avoid personal censure.
“Negative comments about the personal conduct and caliber of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on the errors in the court orders and not on the individual judge,” the top court said.
The judgment emphasized that concerns about the conduct of judicial officers on the administrative side should be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice, ensuring procedural safeguards and protecting the officer’s career.
“Stricts imposed personally against a judicial officer may damage their career and cause unnecessary embarrassment,” the court said, adding that such issues should not be dealt with in court orders.
The verdict stated that the ratio between the number of judges and the number of inhabitants remains inadequate, despite efforts to improve it.
The case arose out of observations recorded by the Delhi High Court against the ADJ in an order dated March 2, 2023.
The Supreme Court had struck down the ADJ’s observations against police officers and criticized the judge’s handling of the interim bail application of one Vikas Gulati, accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code.
In the contested judgment, the High Court described the judge’s approach as a “judicial setback” and advised him to exercise “prudence and prudence” in the future – a move that the appellant said could damage his judicial career.
The apex court said: “Negative comments on the personal conduct and caliber of judicial officers should be avoided. Criticism should focus on correcting mistakes and not on questioning the character or competence of judges.”
It says: “Comments that tarnish the reputation of judicial officers can have far-reaching consequences for their careers and cause unnecessary prejudice and embarrassment.”
The Supreme Court reiterated that concerns about a judge’s conduct should be addressed administratively through the Chief Justice and not through court orders.