Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Sanjay Kumar Sain - Petitioner
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 76 of 2023
Decided On : 1-03-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Samraat Saxena, Ms. Deeya Mittal and Mr. Devvrat Arya, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates. Mr. Sagar Suri and Mr. Kabir Sagar Ghosh, Advocate for recall applicant.

Judicial review does not imply personal criticism of lower court judges unless explicitly stated; expunged remarks may cause reputational harm.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Delay in filing recall application - The applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 736 days in filing a recall application related to a prior judgment - Delay condoned due to insufficient opportunity for hearing and allegations of judicial bias. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The judgment was rendered without affording opportunity of hearing - The applicant claims prejudice to reputation due to adverse remarks. (Paras 6-10)

(C) Judicial Hierarchy - The Court provides clarity on the hierarchical scrutiny and the nature of judicial review, affirming that setting aside or modifying orders does not reflect on the integrity of the lower judiciary. (Paras 14-21)

(D) Observations on Judicial Conduct - The court refrained from making adverse observations against the applicant, emphasizing that just because an order is set aside does not imply incompetence or a lack of integrity. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The applicant seeks to expunge remarks made against him in a prior judgment, claiming lack of opportunity for hearing and unjustified negative comments affecting his service record. The adverse remarks were related to judicial directions he issued.

Findings of Court:
The Court concludes that there was no malice in the applicant's actions, and while the remarks against the police officials were deemed unnecessary, no adverse comments against the applicant were made in the original judgment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the remarks made in the initial judgment against the applicant were warranted and whether the application for recall should be granted considering the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the recording of reasons while setting aside a lower order does not imply personal criticism of the officer who issued it, and that the integrity of judicial officers should not be presumed compromised without explicit remarks to that effect.

Result: Application disposed of, with clarifications provided regarding the judgments and observations made.

Table of Content
1. application for condoning delay in filing (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. request for expunging adverse remarks (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding violation of natural justice (Para 6)
4. court's views on delay in investigations (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. withdrawal of rule impacting the judgment's analysis (Para 11 , 12)
6. clarification on judicial scrutiny and no personal attack (Para 13 , 14)
7. hierarchy of judicial review and its implications (Para 15 , 18 , 19)
8. judicial comments vs. judges' integrity (Para 20 , 21)
9. supreme court views on judicial officer criticisms (Para 22 , 23)
10. clarifications on judgment impact on judicial officer's record (Para 24 , 26)
11. conclusion and disposal of the application (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

CRL.M.A. 11002/2025 (delay in filing the re-call application)

1. By way of instant application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 736 days in filing the re-call application in relation to the judgment dated 01.03.2023 of this Court passed in above-captioned Criminal Writ Petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 736 days in filing the re-call application is condoned.

3. The present application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 11000/2025 (recall of judgment dated 01.03.2023 and/or expunging remarks against re-call applicant)

INTRODUCTION

4. By way of the present application, the applicant, inter alia, seeks deletion of the remarks made against him in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the judgment dated 01.03.2023 passed in the above-captioned writ petition.

5. Vide the aforesaid judgment, this Court had expunged certain remarks made against the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Sain, by the applicant herein, who had passed the orders dated 13.10.2022, 24.11.2022, and 07.12.2022 while being posted as learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contends that the present application, seeking recall of the judgment dated 01.03.2023 and, primarily, expunction of the adverse remarks made therein against the applicant – who, at the relevant time, was serving as Special Judge (NDPS)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi – has been filed on the ground that the said judgment was rendered on the very first date of listing without issuance of notice to, or affording any opportunity of hearing to, the applicant herein. It is further submitted that the judgment was passed without calling for or examining the Trial Court Record and without any counter-affidavit from the State, thereby resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that this Court was misled due to suppression of material facts as well as prior judicial orders relating to repeated directions issued by the learned Trial Court to ensure expeditious investigation and timely filing of the FSL reports and charge-sheet in a matter where the accused had been in custody since 2019. Consequently, while certain remarks were made against the petitioner therein, i.e., the DCP concerned, this Court also recorded adverse observations against the applicant herein by treating his judicial directions as disproportionate. It is urged that the said directions were, in fact, issued in bona fide discharge of judicial duties to uphold the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial and were also in consonance with Rule 13 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is further submitted that the judgment dated 01.03.2023 was thereafter circulated by the learned Registrar General of this Court, specifically naming the applicant, thereby causing grave prejudice to his reputation and service record, despite his unblemished career since his induction into the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the year 2008. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),