Judge seeks deletion of remarks by Delhi High Court against his order; HC says observations not against him

The Delhi High Court recently refused to expunge remarks made by it in respect of a trial court order in which an Additional Sessions Judge had criticised an officer of Delhi Police. [Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)].Last year, while referring to the trial court's remarks, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the High Court emphasized that judicial strictures need to be passed with utmost circumspection.The judge had also ordered the circulation of the High Court judgment among all judicial officers in the national capital.While expunging the trial court's remarks, Justice Sharma had said that the observations made by the judicial officer had gone "beyond the mandate of law, judicial precedents and discipline of judicial restraint."The Additional Sessions Judge who made the remarks and who had also called for an inquiry against the Delhi Police officer, later filed an application seeking the deletion of the High Court's remarks..Judicial strictures need to be passed with utmost circumspection, may be devastating to career: Delhi High Court.The High Court, however, replied that there was no observation made which could be termed as a stricture against the judicial officer or which could affect his future prospects.“While this Court was dealing with the jurisprudence of strictures, this Court was highly conscious of its duty of itself not indulging in passing any disparaging or sweeping remarks against any person including the learned ASJ,” the Court clarified.The Court further said that when an order is challenged before a higher court, it usually does not bring into question the judge but only his order.“It is not the judge who is in question, scrutiny, or adjudication, rather the order passed by the judge, to the best of his capabilities, which can be scrutinized and questioned by a higher court,” the High Court said..Justice Sharma added that it would be impossible for higher courts to decide or set aside any order if applications like those by the judicial officer are filed regularly. The Court clarified that it had not referred to the judicial competence of the judge nor commented on his personal capacity, but had referred only to the contents of his order.“Therefore, to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the application filed before it,” it concluded..However, the Court took note of the judicial officer's concern that the Registry had disclosed his name while circulating the High Court's judgment among judicial officers..Justice Sharma said the name of the judicial officer should not have been so disclosed. She also recalled that the judicial officer’s name was not mentioned even once in the entire High Court judgment..Justice Sharma assured that she could appreciate how the judicial officer may have felt due to the circulation of his name. The judge added that she was a proud member of the Delhi Judicial fraternity, before directing the Registry to ensure that such incidents do not re-occur. “Henceforth, any order directed to be circulated by this Bench/undersigned will not find mention of the concerned judicial officer’s name in the covering letter/circular circulated by the Registry to the District Courts and will refer to court number concerned as the judges preside over the courts, and the courts do not preside over the judges," the High Court ordered..While parting with the order, the Court also placed on record its “highest respect” for all the judicial officers of Delhi. “This Court also hopes that this order acts as a healing balm for the judicial officer concerned/applicant since the circulation of his name along with the judgment dated 22.11.2022 has hurt him and caused discomfort to him,” it said..Advocates Sagar Suri, Nikhil Rohatgi, Siddhant Nath and Anil Kumar Mishra represented the applicant (judicial officer).Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari alongwith Advocate Kunal Mittal and Arjit Sharma represented State government..[Read Order]