The Supreme Court of India is currently engaged in a significant legal matter involving a plea by a Delhi judicial officer, specifically an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). This plea is in response to remarks made against the judicial officer by Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court earlier in 2023. The judicial officer’s petition centers on challenging the High Court’s decision not to retract orders that contain these adverse remarks, which he finds objectionable.
Also read-“Will Have To Constitute Bench”: CJI Chandrachud (lawchakra.in)
The context of the dispute arises from the judicial officer’s critique of the conduct of Delhi Police officials in a criminal investigation. In his orders, Justice Dayal critically assessed the approach, stating,
“Ld. ASJ (judicial officer) has excessively exaggerated the issues relating to the conduct of the petitioners (police officers) in relation to investigation and keeping of records.”
This statement implies that the judicial officer overstated the issues concerning the police officers’ actions during the investigation and record-keeping.
Justice Dayal further elaborated on his critique of the ASJ’s conduct, noting,
“the Ld. ASJ ought not to have embarked on an inexorable quest when his original concern had been suitably addressed. The remarks and the phraseology used by the Ld. ASJ is summary in nature, penal in its scope, stigmatizing in its tone and tenor and as already motioned, beyond the ken of expected judicial conduct.”
This comment suggests that the ASJ’s pursuit of the matter was unnecessary and that his language and approach were overly harsh, penalizing, and stigmatizing, exceeding the norms of expected judicial behavior.
Also read-Supreme Court: Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena Questions Speaker’s Neutrality (lawchakra.in)
In a related instance, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court also recently declined to remove remarks made in a 2022 order. This order involved criticism of the same sessions judge’s decision in another case, where he made adverse comments against a Delhi police officer. Emphasizing the gravity of judicial commentary, Justice Sharma highlighted the need for judicial strictures to be passed with the utmost circumspection.
These cases underscore the complexities involved in the judicial review of a judge’s conduct and comments. The Supreme Court’s handling of the plea will be closely watched, as it will offer insights into how the judiciary balances the need for critique and accountability within its ranks against the imperative to maintain judicial dignity and propriety. The outcome of this case will likely have implications for the standards of judicial conduct and the parameters within which judicial officers can express their assessments of law enforcement actions.
Also read-Supreme Court Reexamines AMU’s Minority Status (Day-1) (lawchakra.in)
