The Delhi High Court criticised a litigant for filing a writ petition to seek FIR against a sitting judge and said proper procedure must be followed. The Court also warned the petitioner for uploading trial court proceedings on YouTube, calling it against the institution’s interest.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised certain litigants who filed a writ petition seeking permission to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against a sitting district court judge for alleged forgery. The Court made it clear that there is a proper legal procedure for such matters and a writ petition cannot be used for this purpose.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia explained that as per the Supreme Court’s judgment, an FIR cannot be registered against a judicial officer for actions taken during official duties without prior permission from the Chief Justice on the administrative side of the High Court.
The Court made it clear that the petition filed by the litigants was not the correct legal method to seek such permission. During the hearing, the Bench remarked,
“The question is how to lodge an FIR. For that purpose, you can’t file a writ petition. Got it?”
The Court also expressed serious concern over the conduct of the petitioners in uploading a video recording of the trial court proceedings on YouTube. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the video was accessible only through the link provided in the petition, but the Court did not accept this justification and warned the petitioners against such actions. The Bench observed that court proceedings are conducted in open court and there was no justification for uploading the video online.
ALSO READ: CJI BR Gavai Launches Live Streaming of Bombay High Court Proceedings on YouTube
The Court cautioned the petitioners and stated,
“This is an open court. You are making your submissions in front of hundreds of lawyers. Do you feel your grievances will not be heard that you are making use of YouTube? We are cautioning you…Don’t do all this. It is neither in your interest nor in the institution’s interest.”
The petitioner’s counsel argued before the Court that the judicial officer had allegedly “concocted” an order in April 2024 in order to favour the opposite party and despite repeated objections, the judge refused to recuse from hearing the case.
However, the High Court explained that any decision regarding permission to register an FIR against a judicial officer must be taken on the administrative side by the Chief Justice and not through a writ petition filed before the Court on the judicial side.
After the Court explained the legal position, the counsel for the petitioners requested the Court to treat the writ petition as a letter addressed to the Chief Justice. However, the Court refused this request and stated that it would decide the matter finally according to law.
During the hearing, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, appearing for Delhi Police and the State, argued that the petitioner was trying to malign the judicial officer and that even a High Court judge had previously criticised the conduct of the petitioner.
He requested the Court to invoke Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, which deals with making false or dishonest claims in court. He also informed the Court that the order which the petitioner was alleging to be forged had already been challenged before the High Court and orders had been passed in that matter.
Advocate Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, appearing for the High Court of Delhi, informed the Court that several complaints had already been made regarding this issue and all those complaints were placed before the vigilance committee for examination.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Refuses Plea to Record and Archive Live-Stream Proceedings
After hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court directed the lawyers appearing for the High Court and the State to compile all relevant documents related to the complaints and place them before the Court. The Court clarified that it was not issuing notice in the matter at this stage and that the case would be heard again next week.
The case highlights the legal position that judicial officers are protected from criminal proceedings for actions taken in discharge of their official duties unless proper administrative approval is obtained from the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Court also sent a strong message against the misuse of court proceedings and the uploading of court recordings on public platforms, stating that such actions are not in the interest of the judicial institution.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Court Proceedings
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
