Judicial strictures need to be passed with utmost circumspection, may be devastating to career: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday expunged remarks and directions against a police officer in a trial court's order after holding that they were unwarranted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and could be devastating to his career and reputation. [Ajit Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi)].The trial court had observed that the petitioner, a Station House Officer, was trying to pass on his responsibility of reporting of service to the court, to the Summons Pool in a case registered under Negotiable Instruments Act. This was in violation of standing orders, the court had said.It then passed certain remarks impeaching the credibility of the petitioner as a police officer, and even directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to take corrective measures against him and place the report before the trial court.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma underlined that every word in a judicial order forms a permanent record and said that use of denigrating remarks against anyone impeaching their credibility is not the best course adopted by a judicial officer, especially when it's not required for adjudication of the case."Every word forming part of a judicial order forms permanent record. Use of denigrating remarks against anyone, especially against police officials impeaching their credibility and questioning their sense of dedication towards duty, is not the best course adopted by a judicial officer, that too when the same is not required for the adjudication of the case before the Court. Such criticism may have a devastating effect on the professional career of an officer. It is also bound to have everlasting affect on the reputation of a person," the Court stated..Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa for the petitioner stated that he had an impeccable service record since joining the services in 1997. He argued that the trial court erred in holding the act of petitioner to be in violation of certain standing orders as they had already been superseded by new standing orders and the process adopted by the petitioner was in accordance with the new standing orders.Placing reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, he argued that directing the administrative authorities to take departmental action against the petitioner was neither mandated in law nor in practice..Additional Standing Counsel for the State, Rupali Bandhopadhya stated that the state was also aggrieved by the observations, remarks and directions of the trial court and sought deletion of the same..The Court noted that based on standing orders, there was no irregularity in the actions of the petitioner."After perusing the latest standing order in this regard, and there being nothing on record which is contrary to the stand of petitioner, this Court is in agreement with the argument that the petitioner was not bound to forward the service reports of Non-Bailable Warrants and notice to surety to the learned Trial Court," it recorded.Further, the fact that instead of original reports of service, copies of the same were submitted before the court, not by petitioner himself but by In-charge, Summons Pool, cannot be the ground to hold the petitioner guilty of irregularities to the extent of passing directions to Commissioner of Police to initiate action against the petitioner, the court held..The Court stated that although police officers are duty bound to discharge their responsibilities with utmost conviction, practical difficulties faced by them cannot be overlooked and disregarded."This Court rather vide this order wants to convey that judicial strictures against anyone need to be passed with utmost circumspection. The judicial power comes with utmost responsibility to exercise adjudicatory liberty to express oneself. Judicial strictures against a police officer to the extent as expressed in the present case are problematic though every disapproval expressed by exercise of adjudicatory liberty of expression may not fall in the realm of lack of judicial restraint," it added..Stating that the observations by the trial Court went beyond the mandate of law, judicial precedents and discipline of judicial restraint, the Court ruled that they amounted to over stepping adjudicatory liberty of expression exercised by a judge. "Such observations have the effect of stigmatizing without conviction, sentencing without inquiry and affect career in future of an officer which had to be left to the internal administrative vigilance and disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by the parent department of the officer in question," the Court added..Thereafter, the Court observed that the trial court could have forwarded the proceedings and the issue faced by the it as well as the act of disobedience to the concerned Commissioner of Police Delhi to take action as per their departmental Standing Orders and the rules applicable to them.However, to direct the authority concerned to initiate action as mentioned in the impugned order and thereafter, ask for compliance to be filed and pass remarks as in the impugned order was unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, it said.Therefore, the Court allowed the plea and expunged the remarks made by the trial court in its order..[Read Judgment]