Stay Or Modification Of Trial Court’s Order Not Reflection Of Judge’s Ability Or Competence: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering an application whereby the Judicial Officer sought deletion of the remarks made against him in the judgment vide which the High Court had expunged his certain observations.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the fact that an order passed by a Trial Court or even High Court is stayed, modified, or otherwise interfered with by a higher court cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order.
The High Court was considering an application whereby the applicant sought deletion of the remarks made against him in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the judgment vide which the High Court had expunged certain remarks made against the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Sain, by the applicant, who had passed the orders while being posted as the Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated, “Thus, to sum up the abovesaid, 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.”
“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”, it added.
Advocate Prabhav Ralli represented the Petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the recall applicant, a serving judicial officer, that the recall application became a necessity as the impugned judgment was subsequently cited by other Benches of this Court, which led to adverse observations being recorded against him. It was submitted that, possibly as a consequence thereof, the recall applicant was transferred as District Judge (Commercial-04) vide a transfer order and also suffered a downgrade of his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2023 from ‘A+’ to ‘B+’.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that while passing the judgment, the Court had concluded that the delay in furnishing the FSL reports was attributable solely to the FSL. It was observed that the police officers, including the DCP concerned (the petitioner in the writ petition), could have done little beyond issuing priority letters and regularly following up with the FSL, which they had done. The Court had thus held that the adverse remarks made against the DCP and other police officials, by the concerned Trial Court i.e. the present applicant, were uncalled for.
It was also noticed that while expunging the remarks made by the applicant, in his judicial orders, against the petitioner and other police officials, the Court had recorded reasons in support of its conclusion, as any court of law is required to do. The Court had, however, confined itself to examining and analysing the impugned orders in question and no personal observations were made against the applicant herein.
The Bench found that it was specifically noted by the Court that the Trial Court was concerned about the delay in framing of charges in the case, particularly since the accused had been in judicial custody for a considerable period of time. It was on account of this anxiety regarding delay in the proceedings that the Trial Court i.e. re-call applicant herein, had adopted a strict approach, which, however, to the extent it involved passing of remarks against the police officials for delay in furnishing of FSL report by the Director, FSL, was found to be unwarranted by the High Court.
The Bench held, “It is a settled position in the judicial hierarchy in India that orders passed by the Trial Courts and District Courts are subject to scrutiny by the High Court, and similarly, orders of a Single Judge of the High Court are amenable to, at times, challenge before a Division Bench, and thereafter the orders of High Court can be assailed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In this process of judicial scrutiny, when an order is set aside or modified by a higher court, reasons are naturally recorded for doing so. Such reasons, by their very nature, involve examination of the legality and correctness of the impugned order. The recording of reasons while setting aside an order cannot, by itself, be construed as a reflection on the competence, integrity, or ability of the judicial officer who passed the order, unless there are specific and express observations to that effect.”
The Bench was of the view that no remarks touching upon the competence, integrity, or personal conduct of the applicant were made in the impugned judgment, review of which has been sought in the proceedings. The Bench thus ordered, “However, considering the anxiety expressed by the applicant, it is, by way of abundant caution, clarified that the observations made in the judgment dated 01.03.2023 were confined solely to the adjudication of the writ petition and the same may not be treated as adverse remarks against the applicant for the purposes of recording or assessing his Annual Confidential Report.”
Thus, holding that no further orders were required to be passed in the present application, the Bench disposed of the application in such a manner.
Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Sain v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2128)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Prabhav Ralli, Samraat Saxena, Deeya Mittal, Devvrat Arya
Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, Advocates Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta, Sagar Suri, Kabir Sagar Ghosh