Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Sagar Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
District Judge, Moradabad and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9146 of 2019
Decided On: 28-02-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Misconduct – Complaint submitted on behalf of the petitioner through the counsel relates to orders passed by a judicial officer (respondent No. 3) in her judicial capacity. – The petitioner has adequate remedies under the law in case he is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders. – The complaint does not disclose any act of misconduct so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. – There is no evidence in the record to support the charge of any misconduct. – In the event a complaint does not establish a prima facie act of misconduct, no departmental enquiry can be ordered against a judicial officer. – In fact a perusal of the complaint shows that this is a frivolous petition, by a disgruntled litigant against a judge who passed adverse orders against him. – The action of the petitioner constitutes an abuse of the process of Court. – Held, Judicial officers can discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour, affection or ill will only if a conducive environment is built around them. – For this it is essential to protect judicial officers, from the menace of false and frivolous complaints by disgruntled litigants or motivated lawyers or interested parties. – No judicial officer can discharge her judicial functions in accord with her obligations to the constitution and the laws, if she is under constant threat of roving enquiries on the foot of vague allegations. – There is a noticeable proclivity to make such vague and frivolous allegations against judicial officers, by litigants and even lawyers who are dissatisfied by adverse verdicts. – Irresponsible institution or unfettered prosecution of false and frivolous complaints, impedes the effective functioning of the judicial system, and undermines the administration of justice. – Such complaints paired with litigation against the officers pose a systemic threat to the independence of the judiciary. – Judicial officers have to be secured against false and mala fide complaints by creating a system of deterrence and penalties. – To curb this evil of false and frivolous complaints effectively, it is imperative to create a deterrent regime which may include imposition of costs on the complainants. – This is apart from other processes known to law, like drawing contempt proceedings. – In the absence of such deterrent regime false and frivolous complaints would be made with impunity, the complainants would harbor a sense of immunity and the judges would become perpetually vulnerable. – In the facts of this case as found earlier in the preceding part of the judgment, the complaints against the judicial officer do not disclose any act of misconduct. – Also as stated earlier, in case he is aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner can take recourse to remedies as per law. – Equally the mala fide intent of the petitioner who seems to be a disgruntled litigant stands established. – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The petitioner has sought the following relief in this writ petition:
"(i) Issue writ order or direction to decide the complaint/application dated 30.10.2019 pending for consideration before this Hon'ble High Court and an inquiry at administrative level may be conducted and appropriate action as per law may be taken against Nahid Sultana Civil Judge (Sr. Div./F.T.C.) Moradabad."
2. On 7.12.2019 the following order was passed:
"Sri H.K. Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Anil Babu, learned Special Counsel appearing for High Court and the District Courts may study the matter and inform the Court as to whether the respondent No. 3 had the jurisdiction to decide the execution application or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may impaled the plaintiffs as respondents in this petition during the course of the day.
Place this petition on 9.12.2019 as fresh."
3. Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel for the High Court submits that the Fast Track Court had the jurisdiction to decide the execution application.
4. Heard Sri Pankaj Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
5. The complaint dated 30.10.2019 submitted on behalf of the petitioner through the counsel relates to orders passed by a judicial officer (respondent No. 3) in her judicial capacity. The petitioner has adequate remedies under the law in case he is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders. The complaint does not disclose any act of misconduct so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no evidence in the record to support the charge of any misconduct. In the event a complaint does not establish a prima facie act of misconduct, no departmental enquiry can be ordered against a judicial officer. In fact a perusal of the complaint shows that this is a frivolous petition, by a disgruntled litigant against a judge who passed adverse orders against him. The action of the petitioner constitutes an abuse of the process of Court.
6. Judges in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, discharge most critical functions when they implement the laws and dispense justice. Faithful implementation of the law and impartial administration of justice is possible only if those charged with execution of these functions, are free and fearless, independent and unbiased. These virtues of fearless enquiry, independent decision making and rendering impartial judgments, can flourish in the judiciary only if the environment fosters and supports such qualities. Absent these values or an institutional failure to nurture and fortify these values, could seriously undermine the justice delivery system and impair public faith in the judiciary.
7. The qualities of fearless and independent decision making which are the hallmarks of a vibrant judiciary were emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Prasad Verma (D) through L.Rs. v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (10) SCC 640:
"1. In a country, which follows the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary. This independence and fearlessness is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the District Judiciary.
2. Most litigants only come in contact with the District Judiciary. They cannot afford to come to the High Court or the Supreme Court. For them the last word is the word of the Magistrate or at best the Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is equally important, if not more important, that the judiciary at the District level and at the Taluka level is absolutely honest, fearless and free from any pressure and is able to decide cases only on the basis of the facts on file, uninfluenced by any pressure from any quarters whatsoever."
8. The importance of the subordinate judiciary created under the Constitution
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
