The Delhi High Court said setting aside a lower court order does not question a judge’s integrity, with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma making the remark while hearing an additional sessions judge’s plea seeking deletion of adverse observations.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently observed that a higher court’s decision to set aside or modify a lower court’s order should not be taken as a judgment on the ability or integrity of the judge who issued that order.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this remark while considering an additional sessions judge’s application. The judge had sought deletion of certain allegedly adverse remarks the High Court made while expunging his criticism of the Delhi Police.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Allahabad HC for Illegal Sentence Change, Cancels Order
Justice Sharma clarified that the High Court’s reasons for setting aside an order do not automatically reflect on the competence, integrity, or ability of the judicial officer who issued it, unless the higher court makes specific and express findings to that effect.
It said,
“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.”
She explained that hierarchical review of judicial orders is a fundamental element of the Indian judicial system. When litigants appeal, higher courts assess only the correctness of the order under challenge; they do not pronounce on the personal competence of the judge who authored it, unless the order is manifestly perverse or flatly contrary to statute and settled law.
She emphasised,
“Merely because an order of the Trial Court is set aside or modified or stayed by the High Court or modified to some extent or set aside to some extent, as in the present case, no inference can be drawn against the general competence, ability or integrity of the concerned judicial officer in the absence of any specific adverse observations,”
The High Court added a broader point:
“If it were to be presumed that the passing of an order by a higher court, staying or setting aside an order of the Trial Court, amounts to commenting on the integrity of the Trial Court, no case could ever be decided by a higher Court.”
Factual Background:
The additional sessions judge had criticized a Delhi police officer in several orders after noting delays in producing forensic evidence in a drugs case. The police officer, Sanjay Sain, petitioned the High Court to expunge the critical remarks made against him in three orders. On March 1, 2023, the High Court expunged those observations and described the trial court’s comments as unnecessary, while also stating there was no ill intent on the trial court’s part merely concern over delays in that case. The judgment was circulated among judicial officers in Delhi.
The trial court judge contended that the circulation of the High Court’s judgment, which mentioned him by name, harmed his reputation and career prospects and therefore sought recall of the March 2023 judgment to remove any adverse references to him.
Court’s Observation:
Justice Sharma, however, held that the deletion of the trial court’s critical remarks about the police officer did not equate to criticism of the trial judge’s competence or integrity.
She said,
“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 Court also observed that the judicial officer was not named in the March 2023 judgment, nor were there personal adverse observations directed at him.
Justice Sharma noted that it is neither unusual nor extraordinary for a higher court to stay or modify a lower court’s order; such interventions fall within the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. She reiterated that absent a specific remark on a judge’s competence by a higher court, no adverse inference should be drawn merely because an order was found legally unsustainable or because certain observations against a party or counsel were deemed unjustified or unduly harsh and were consequently set aside, modified, or stayed.
She said,
“Unless and until a specific observation regarding the competence, integrity, or conduct of the judge is made by the higher court, no such inference can be drawn merely because an order has been set aside on the ground that it was found to be legally unsustainable, or because certain observations made against any party to the litigation, or even against counsel appearing for a party, were found to be unjustified, illegal, or unnecessarily harsh within the parameters of settled principles of law, and consequently set aside, modified, or stayed by the higher court.”
Nonetheless, the High Court expressly clarified that no adverse remarks were made about the trial judge in its March 2023 judgment, and that the judgment should not negatively affect his career.
The Court stated,
“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. It is further clarified that the said observations shall not be construed as reflecting upon his competence or integrity in any manner,”
With these clarifications, the High Court dismissed the application.
Representing Sanjay Sain were Advocates Prabhav Ralli, Samraat Saxena, Deeya Mittal and Devvrat Aryan. Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, assisted by Advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta, represented the State. Advocates Sagar Suri and Kabir Sagar Ghosh appeared for the additional sessions judge.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sain vs State of NCT of Delhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
