Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, passed orders on an anticipatory bail application in which he made adverse observations about the conduct of the investigating officer and the station house officer, and issued directions for inquiry. The police officers filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Delhi High Court seeking expungement of those remarks. The High Court, by order dated 2nd March 2023, expunged all remarks against the police officers and also made adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14, stating that the appellant had embarked on an 'inexorable quest' and engaged in 'judicial misadventures'. The appellant sought expungement of those remarks, which was rejected by the High Court on 9th May 2023. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, examined the facts and found that the appellant's observations about the investigation were not wholly unjustified. The Court noted that the High Court's remarks were likely to prejudice the appellant's career and were unwarranted. The Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court's order, while upholding the expungement of remarks against the police officers. The Court also noted that Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which cautioned against making remarks against police, had been approved for deletion as it interfered with judicial discretion.
Headnote
A) Judicial Conduct - Adverse Remarks - Expungement - The High Court's remarks that the appellant embarked on an 'inexorable quest' and engaged in 'judicial misadventures' were held to be unwarranted and likely to prejudice the appellant's career - The Supreme Court expunged the remarks, holding that judicial officers should not be subjected to such criticism for bona fide actions (Paras 13-14). B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Power to Make Observations - A judicial officer while deciding a bail application can make observations regarding police conduct if relevant to the case - The appellant's observations about the investigation were not wholly unjustified (Paras 2-4). C) High Court Rules - Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I, Volume III - Deletion - The Rule which cautioned against making remarks against police was found to interfere with judicial discretion and has been approved for deletion (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant (Additional Sessions Judge) in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order dated 2nd March 2023 should be expunged.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and expunged the adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court order dated 2nd March 2023. The Court held that the remarks were unwarranted and likely to prejudice the appellant's career.
Law Points
- Expungement of adverse remarks
- judicial conduct
- power to make observations
- Rule 6 High Court Rules
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 177 IPC
