The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea by a Delhi-based judicial officer challenging strictures passed by the Delhi High Court directing him to undergo refresher training in matrimonial laws for alleged misapplication of statutes in family court matters.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by a Delhi-based family court judge challenging adverse remarks made against him by the Delhi High Court, which had directed that he undergo a “comprehensive refresher-training programme in matrimonial laws” before handling any further family disputes.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the judicial officer’s petition and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.
When the counsel for the petitioner sought an immediate stay on the high court’s directions, the bench declined, stating, “We are issuing notice. What more do you want?” The bench, however, remarked that it may consider expunging the remarks at a later stage if satisfied.
During the brief hearing, the bench questioned the petitioner’s conduct, observing, “Why did he invite these strictures? He is exercising Article 142 powers while sitting as a district judge.” Article 142 of the Constitution empowers only the Supreme Court to pass orders to ensure complete justice in any case.
The Delhi High Court had, in a November 2025 judgment, strongly criticised the judicial officer’s approach to adjudicating matrimonial disputes, finding “repeated” instances of conflation of statutory provisions from distinct legislations.
In particular, the high court took serious exception to the judge relying on “Section 28A of the Special Marriage Act,” a provision which, it noted, “does not exist on the statute book,” and granting divorce on its basis. “We were, in fact, taken aback,” the high court remarked, while setting aside the family court’s decision.
The court added:
“We deem it necessary to record our strong disapproval of the manner in which the judge… has been adjudicating matrimonial matters.”
“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.”
While acknowledging that appellate courts must ordinarily refrain from making personal remarks against subordinate judicial officers, the high court stated that the judge’s repeated conduct “disturbs judicial conscience” and “threatens the integrity of the administration of justice.”
Accordingly, it had directed that the judicial officer undergo a refresher-training programme at the Delhi Judicial Academy “post-haste” before taking up further matrimonial matters.
Challenging these directions, the judicial officer has argued before the Supreme Court that such strictures were passed without granting him an opportunity to be heard, contrary to established principles laid down by the apex court.
The Supreme Court’s notice now sets the stage for a detailed adjudication on the legality and fairness of the high court’s observations and directions.
