The Supreme Court urged high courts to avoid personal remarks against trial court judges while addressing their errors, highlighting the heavy burden of case pendency they face. It pointed out the strain caused by a low judge-to-population ratio, emphasizing the need for systemic support. Instead of targeting judges personally, the focus should remain on correcting erroneous judgments.
New Delhi: In a defense of over 22,000 trial court judges burdened with more than 4.5 crore pending cases, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Supreme Court and High Courts, while exercising their appellate jurisdiction, should refrain from personally criticizing the conduct of judicial officers when correcting errors in their judgments.
The court expunged critical remarks made by the Delhi High Court against Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri.
Read Also: “No Estoppel Against Court’s Errors” – Kerala High Court Recalls Child Custody Order
Justices A.S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and A.G. Masih stated,
“The HC could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to advise individual judicial officers. That can only be done on the administrative side in an appropriate case.”
The Supreme Court noted that as of 2024, the ‘judge-to-population’ ratio is still below the ideal target.
The bench referenced a 2002 directive from the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case, which called for increasing the judge-to-population ratio in trial courts to 50 per million within five years.
However, the court pointed out,
“We have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, population and litigation have substantially increased. The judges have to work under stress.”
The justices acknowledged that even the most competent judges, whether at the trial level, High Court, or Supreme Court, may err due to work pressure, despite the majority of their judgments being sound.
They highlighted that while High Courts can correct errors, personal strictures against judges can lead to prejudice and embarrassment.
Justice Oka remarked,
“We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of judges or recording findings on the conduct of judges in judgments must be avoided.”
The bench clarified the distinction between criticizing erroneous orders and criticizing judges themselves, stating,
“The first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided.”
The High Court previously criticized the Additional Sessions Judge for reprimanding the Delhi Police for its slow updates on investigation statuses despite repeated orders. The Supreme Court ordered the removal of all personal critical comments against the ASJ from the High Court’s judgment.