Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1078

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sonu Agnihotri – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Shekhar & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 388-389 of 2024
Decided on : 22-11-2024

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

IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No court can be called a “subordinate court” – Personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Adverse remarks – Expunging of – Courts higher in judicial hierarchy are invested with appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct errors committed by courts that are judicially subordinate to it – High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to correct errors committed by courts which are judicially subordinate to it – No court can be called a “subordinate court” – Reference to “subordinate” courts is only in context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction – Superior courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous orders and expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations – While doing so, superior courts can legitimately criticise orders passed by Trial Courts or Appellate Courts by giving reasons – There can be criticism of errors committed, in some cases, by using strong language – However, such observations must always be in context of errors in impugned orders – While doing so, courts have to show restraint and adverse comments on personal conduct and caliber of Judicial Officer should be avoided – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – High Court Judges, after noticing improper conduct on part of Judicial Officer, can always invite attention of Chief Justice on administrative side to such conduct. (Para 15)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Adverse remarks – Expunging of – Judges are human beings – All human beings are prone to committing mistakes – To err is human – Almost all courts in our country are overburdened – Population and litigation have substantially increased – Judges have to work under stress – In a given case, after writing several sound judgments, a Judge may commit error in one judgment due to pressure of work or otherwise – Higher court can always correct error – However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to Judicial Officer, apart from embarrassment involved – Personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided – High Court could not have used a judgment on judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers – That can only be done on administrative side in an appropriate case – Direction to expunge remarks made against appellant will not bind administrative side of High Court – Adverse remarks against appellant hereby expunged. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service. 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. Appellant moved an application before the Delhi High Court for expunging remarks in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023. By an order dated 9th May 2023, said application was rejected by the High Court. This is the second impugned order.
Findings of Court:
Describing the appellant's approach as a ‘judicial misadventure’ in paragraph 14 was also improper. Therefore, the prayer made by the appellant for expunging remarks in paragraphs 13 and 14, will have to be acceded to.
Result : Appeals allowed.

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 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:

It is surprising that despite opposing anticipatory bail applications of co- accused Sunita and Raj Bala and submitting before court that their custody is required for recovery of stolen sarees, IO instead of arresting them made them join investigation after serving notices U/sec 41A Cr.P.C. There was no need to oppose anticipatory bail applications of co- accused Sunita and Raj Bala in case, their custody was not required by IO. When police has opposed anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala before court but made them join investigation by serving notice U/sec 41A Cr. P.C, it appears that there is something fishy on part of police. …………………………………………………..” (emphasis added)

After making the above observations, the appellant dealt with the merits of the bail application and concluded that the accused before him was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the appellant observed thus:

he is not carrying out investigation in a proper manner and there is something more written on wall than visible.”

3. The appellant observed that despite so many orders passed by the court, the updated status of cases pending against the accused had not been mentioned in the previous involvement report of the accused filed, along with a reply to the anticipatory bail application. Thereafter, the appellant issued the following directions:

Let copy of order be sent to DCP, South to inquire about role of IO as well as SHO PS Defence Colony in investigation of present case in view of observations of this court as have come in this order with direction to file Action Taken Report against the erring officials and file report in this regard before this court on 31.01.2023.

Let explanation 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 year