The Supreme Court agreed to examine a judicial officer’s plea against Delhi High Court directions mandating refresher training in matrimonial laws. The High Court had criticised his handling of family court cases and ordered compulsory training at the Delhi Judicial Academy before further adjudication.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea from a judicial officer challenging the strictures imposed by the Delhi High Court, which mandated that he undergo a refresher training program in matrimonial laws.
In its November ruling, the high court expressed strong disapproval regarding the way the family court judicial officer handled matrimonial cases.
The court instructed that the officer must participate in an “appropriate and comprehensive refresher-training programme in matrimonial laws, under the aegis of the Delhi Judicial Academy, post-haste, before he adjudicates any further matrimonial matters.”
ALSO READ: “Judges Are Human Beings, And All Humans Are Prone To Mistakes”: Supreme Court
The plea from the judicial officer, based in Delhi, was presented before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
The bench queried the counsel representing the judicial officer,
“Why did he invite these strictures?”
The bench noted,
“He is exercising Article 142 powers while sitting as a district judge,”
Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue any decree or order deemed “necessary for doing complete justice” in a case before it.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that such strictures should not be imposed without providing an opportunity for the concerned individual to be heard.
The bench subsequently issued a notice regarding the plea and scheduled a hearing four weeks later.
When the petitioner’s counsel requested a stay on the high court’s order, the bench responded,
“We are issuing notice. What more do you want?”
While declining to stay the high court’s order at this time, the bench mentioned,
“If we are satisfied, we will expunge the remarks,”
The high court had issued its ruling in response to an appeal challenging a decision made by the judicial officer in a matrimonial case.
The high court stated,
“At the very outset, we deem it necessary to record our strong disapproval of the manner in which the judge … has been adjudicating matrimonial matters,”
It continued,
“We have repeatedly found that he has conflated provisions of distinct and self-contained statutes, each with its own specific procedures and purposes, thereby distorting the statutory framework governing matrimonial disputes,”
ALSO READ: “Avoid Personal Criticism of Judges, Criticise Erroneous Judgments”: Supreme Court
The high court highlighted that a judicial officer cannot merge statutory provisions from different enactments in a way that does not accurately reflect the law or allow for such blending.
It noted,
“We were, in fact, taken aback to find that the judge relied upon, in the impugned judgment, a provision, section 28A of the SMA, that does not exist on the statute book and on this basis, granted a decree of divorce,”
While making these observations, the high court acknowledged the consistent caution expressed by the apex court that high courts should generally refrain from making personal remarks against subordinate judiciary officers.
It stated, ultimately setting aside the family court’s judgment,
“However, the manner in which the family court judge has repeatedly conducted proceedings not only disturbs judicial conscience but also threatens the integrity of the administration of justice,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
