While declining to recall a judgment and delete specific paragraphs from the judgment that contained strictures against a judicial officer, the Delhi High Court held that such applications, if filed frequently, would make it exceedingly challenging for the higher courts to review and overturn orders issued by the lower courts whose decisions have been questioned before them.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “the name of the judicial officer should hot have been mentioned in the circular/covering letter which was to be circulated to all the judicial officers of Delhi. Needless to say, on the same principles, when the judgment in this case was passed, the name of the judicial officer in question was not mentioned even once in the entire judgment, being conscious of the fact that it was the judicial correctness of the order which was in question and under consideration and not the judicial competence of the judicial officer concerned”.

The Bench stressed the importance of the hierarchical system of judicial adjudication, emphasizing that challenges to orders typically question the correctness of the order itself rather than the judge who issued it.

While stressing so, the Bench pointed that if such challenges became frequent, higher courts would face difficulties in reviewing and overturning lower court decisions.

Petitioner appeared in person, whereas Advocate Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, applications were filed seeking recalling of a common judgment dated Nov 22, 2022. The primary request was to expunge or delete remarks made against the applicant in the judgment passed by the court. The counsel for the applicant had pointed out that the said judgment was circulated among all Delhi judicial officers as per the court's direction, and the circular included the applicant's name. They contended that the observations in paragraph numbers 30 to 38 of the judgment were in the form of strictures against the applicant, who was a judicial officer, and thus should be expunged from the judgment.

After considering the submission, the Bench clarified that its opinion was based on the content of the challenged order and was not a judgment on the judicial competence of the applicant.

However, the Bench addressed the concern raised by the applicant's counsel, and pointed out that, although the judgment was supposed to be circulated among all judicial officers in Delhi, the circular from the Registry included the name of the applicant.

The Bench clarified that in the judgment dated Nov 22, 2022, the court had only ordered the circulation of the judgment among all judicial officers, and there was no specific order to communicate the judgment to the individual judge.

However, even if it were to be sent to the concerned judge, the name of the judicial officer should not have been mentioned in the circular or covering letter intended for circulation among all judicial officers in Delhi, emphasized the Bench.

The Bench acknowledged the discomfort in such situations and stressed that it should not be underestimated, and issued a directive specifying that any order issued by the Bench would not include the name of the concerned judicial officer in the covering letter or circular sent by the Registry to the District Courts. Instead, it would refer to the court number where judges preside, emphasizing that courts do not preside over the judges.

Consequently, the application to recall the judgment and delete paragraphs was denied, however, the High Court expressed a hope that this order would serve as a source of relief for the judicial officer in question.

Cause Title: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7602]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Pankaj Bajpai