In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who had criticised the Delhi Police in a judicial order. The ASJ had earlier called out lapses in a case involving the alleged theft of sarees from a shop, sparking controversy.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the plea filed by the judicial officer, delivering a decisive verdict. “Appeals are allowed. Adverse remarks are expunged,” the Bench stated while pronouncing the order.
The dispute arose when the ASJ issued directives for an inquiry into the conduct of police officials, citing deficiencies in their investigation. The directives also sought the intervention of the Police Commissioner. The Delhi High Court, however, objected to these strictures, removing them and making adverse remarks against the judicial officer in its ruling.
The ASJ later approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to recall the adverse remarks. Represented by advocate Sagar Suri, the judicial officer argued for the preservation of judicial independence and authority in holding law enforcement accountable.
The Supreme Court, in its observations, criticised a Delhi High Court rule that restricts trial courts from censuring police conduct unless strictly relevant to a case. Found in Section 6 of Chapter I, Part H of the Delhi High Court’s “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases,” the rule states:
“It is undesirable for courts to make remarks censuring the actions of police officers unless the remarks are strictly relevant to the case.”
The apex court expressed concerns over the rule, stating that it appears to dictate how trial courts draft their judgments. The Bench suggested that such a rule undermines judicial discretion and called for it to be revisited or struck down.
Advocate Sagar Suri represented the ASJ, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court had sought a response from the High Court earlier this year, setting the stage for the Friday ruling.
