A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih highlighted the immense pressure judges face, which makes occasional errors inevitable.
NEW DELHI: On Friday(22nd Nov), the Supreme Court expressed concern over the rising judicial workload, emphasizing that the judge-to-population ratio in India remains below 25 per million.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih highlighted the immense pressure judges face, which makes occasional errors inevitable.
“Judges are human beings, and all humans are prone to mistakes. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened,” the Court noted.
Referring to the 2002 case of All India Judges’ Association (3) v. Union of India, the Bench pointed out that the Supreme Court had directed efforts to raise the judge-to-population ratio to 50 per million within five years.
However, by 2024, this target remains unmet, with the ratio still below 25 per million, even as population and litigation have surged.
The Court stressed that higher courts should exercise caution when making adverse remarks about judges, as errors are common under heavy workloads.
“Superior courts can always correct mistakes. However, issuing personal strictures against judges causes undue prejudice and embarrassment,” the Bench stated.
It emphasized that even constitutional court judges are susceptible to errors, so personal criticism should be avoided.
BRIEF FACTS
These observations were made while ruling on a plea by a Delhi judicial officer seeking the removal of adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court. The remarks stemmed from the officer’s critical comments about the Delhi Police in a judicial order. The Supreme Court agreed to expunge the comments, acknowledging that such observations could harm a judge’s career.
The Bench concluded by noting that judicial officers facing administrative action have the right to explain their position fully. However, personal criticisms in judgments can unfairly damage their professional standing. Advocate Sagar Suri represented the judicial officer in the case.
