What the Supreme Court held on initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Judicial Officers

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial officer should not be initiated merely because an incorrect order was passed, unless there is evidence to show that orders were passed for extraneous reasons..While allowing an appeal filed by a Judicial Officer challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held,.“If wrong orders are passed that should not lead to disciplinary action unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file.”.However, the judgment of the Supreme Court also stressed on the need for an independent and fearless judiciary. Justice Gupta, in his oral judgment, says that independence and fearlessness is expected from the District Judiciary as much as it is expected from the Higher Judiciary..“In a country, which follows the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary. This independence and fearlessness is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the District judiciary.”.The Supreme Court emphasised that High Courts are “the protectors and guardians of the judges falling within their administrative control” and exercise disciplinary power over subordinate courts under their jurisdiction. However, there are criteria that should be following in such matters, as laid down in a series of judgments passed by the Supreme Court on the issue of initiation of disciplinary proceedings..The Bench proceeded to reiterate that the High Court must be cautious before initiating disciplinary proceedings merely on account of wrong orders being passed..“…this Court has cautioned the High Courts that action should not be taken against judicial officers only because wrong orders are passed. To err is human and not one of us, who has held judicial office, can claim that we have never passed a wrong order…if wrong orders are passed that should not lead to disciplinary action unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file.”.However, the decision also came with the following disclaimer,.“We would, however, like to make it clear that we are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the concerned judicial officer.”.The appellant in this case was a Judicial officer, Krishna Prasad Verma, who had faced disciplinary proceedings from the High Court on account of two charges..One of the charges was that the Judicial officer had allowed the grant of bail in a murder case, although the High Court had earlier rejected the same. The second charge related to an order of acquittal in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Judicial Officer was accused of having obstructed the production of material witnesses to the case by closing evidence, thereby leading to the acquittal..On an examination of the material on record, the Supreme Court found that in both instances, there was nothing to show that the Judicial Officer had acted on extraneous reasons..As far as the first charge is concerned, the Court noted that the public prosecutor had not appeared to counter the bail plea before it was granted by the appellant-judge. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant appeared to have been negligent in perusing the High Court order. However, it was opined that such negligence on the part of the appellant need not be construed to be misconduct on his part. Further, it was also noted that grant of bail, which led to the disciplinary action, was eventually cancelled by the appellant when the incorrectness of the same was brought to his notice..As regards the second charge in the NDPS case, the Court found that the appellant had closed evidence in the case after the Public Prosecutor submitted that he was unable to produce the witnesses. In view of the same, the Public Prosecutor had submitted that evidence may be closed..The Bench also noted that the appellant had given as made as 18 adjournments for the production of the witnesses, before he closed evidence. Taking note of the conundrum in such situations, the Court observed that the judicial officer “is between the devil and the deep sea” in such situations. If evidence is closed, he will be questioned over the reasons for the same. On the other hand, a large number of adjournments would also lead him to disciplinary action against him by the High Court. The Court observed,.“That is not the purpose of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. That is why we again repeat that one of the responsibilities of the High Court on the administrative side is to ensure that the independence of the District judiciary is maintained and the High Court acts as a guardian and protector of the District judiciary.”.Therefore, on finding that no disciplinary action was warranted in the instant case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant..[Read Judgment]