The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed by a judicial officer seeking the recall of a 2023 judgment and the expunging of alleged adverse remarks made against him, holding that the earlier decision did not contain any personal observations touching upon his competence or integrity. The Court Remarked:
“This Court reiterates that merely expunging the observations made against the petitioner – a police officer, by the present recall applicant – a judicial officer, cannot be treated as a reflection on the competence and integrity of the judicial officer in question or on the work done by him, as a judge, over the last several years.”
The recall applicant, who was serving as an Additional Sessions Judge at the relevant time, sought deletion of observations made in the High Court’s judgment dated 1 March 2023. He contended that the judgment had been passed without issuing notice to him or calling for the trial court record, and it resulted in prejudice to his reputation and service record, including the alleged downgrading of his Annual Confidential Report.
The earlier judgment had examined orders passed by the trial court in connection with delays in the filing of forensic reports and had expunged certain remarks made against police officials, including a Deputy Commissioner of Police. The High Court had held that the delay in furnishing the FSL reports was attributable to the forensic laboratory and that the police officials had already taken steps such as issuing priority letters and following up with the laboratory.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that while expunging those remarks, the Court had merely analysed the legality of the trial court’s orders and had not made any personal observations against the judicial officer. The Court had also recorded that the trial judge’s strict directions appeared to stem from concern over delay in framing charges, particularly as the accused had remained in custody for a considerable period. The court had found this approach to the extent it involved passing of remarks against the police officials for delay in furnishing of FSL report by the Director, FSL, to be unwarranted.
Rejecting the recall plea, the Court emphasised that scrutiny of orders by higher courts is a normal feature of the judicial hierarchy. It held that when an order of a lower court is modified or set aside, the reasons recorded by the appellate court relate to the legality of the order and cannot automatically be construed as comments on the competence or integrity of the judge who passed it.
Referring to Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and Ors.: 2024 INSC 888, the Court reiterated that such appellate scrutiny is inherent to the adjudicatory process. To sum up, the court remarked:
“The fact that an order passed by a court, whether Trial Court or even High Court, is stayed, modified, or otherwise interfered with by a higher court such as High Court or Supreme Court respectively, cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order. Such judicial scrutiny is an inherent feature of the hierarchical structure of courts and forms part of the ordinary course of the adjudicatory process.”
However, considering the concerns raised by the applicant, the Court clarified that the observations made in the 2023 judgment were confined to the adjudication of the writ petition and should not be treated as adverse remarks affecting the judicial officer’s service record or assessment of his Annual Confidential Report.
The Court also addressed the issue of the circulation of judgments to judicial officers. While referring to Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023:DHC:7602, the court observed that where the name of a judicial officer is not mentioned in the judgment itself, it should not be included in the covering letter circulated by the Registry. The recall application was accordingly disposed of.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Samraat Saxena, Ms. Deeya Mittal and Mr. Devvrat Arya, Advocates.
Respondent- 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.
