Sonu Agnihotri vs Chandra Shekhar - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1078

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1078

ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Sonu Agnihotri – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Shekhar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Mr. Sagar Suri, Adv. Mr. Kabir Sagar Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Shruti Priya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Adv. Mr. Adhiraj Wadhera, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., AOR

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court delineates boundaries of judicial power under constitutional supervisory jurisdiction (Art. 227) and inherent powers (S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS), emphasizing restraint in activism. (!) (!) While higher courts may correct errors in subordinate judicial orders through criticism focused on flaws, personal remarks on a judge's conduct or caliber undermine independence and must be avoided. (!) (!) (!) Distinguishing order critique from officer condemnation, the Court holds that misconduct warrants administrative intervention by the Chief Justice, not judicial strictures, preserving judicial morale amid overburdened courts. (!) (!) (!) Expunging High Court’s “judicial misadventure” label against a Sessions Judge, it reinforces activism's expanding role in oversight—setting aside erroneous directions and unwarranted observations—while mandating sobriety to safeguard hierarchy without “subordinate” connotations. (!) (!) (!) This balances corrective authority with human fallibility, curbing overreach. (148 words) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellant is serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service. The appellant has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023 by the Delhi High 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 t