Holding

The High Court’s adverse observations and direction were uncalled for and must be expunged, though it may still exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction under Article 235 independently.

Summary

The appellant, a subordinate judicial officer, was ordered by a High Court Single Judge to expedite a criminal trial and to explain delays. After the trial judge submitted a detailed written explanation citing massive case pendency, witness numbers, and administrative bottlenecks, the High Court dismissed the accused’s petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. but, in the same order, directed departmental proceedings against the trial judge for alleged non‑compliance. The trial judge sought expungement of those adverse observations; the writ petition was dismissed and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s observations and direction were uncalled for, violated the principle of judicial restraint, and must be expunged, though the High Court may still initiate disciplinary action under Article 235 independently. The appeal was allowed, and the order’s adverse remarks were set aside.

Issues considered

Can a High Court embed adverse observations against a subordinate judge within a judicial order dismissing a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C.?
Do such observations amount to an abuse of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 235 of the Constitution?
Is the trial judge entitled to have the observations and direction expunged without a prior hearing?
May the High Court still initiate disciplinary proceedings against the trial judge independently of the expunged observations?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Constitution of Indias. 235

Subjects

judicial supervisiondisciplinary proceedingsSection 482 CrPCdelay in trialexpungement of observationsArticle 235subordinate judiciaryjudicial restraint

Judgment

"
,, IN THE MATTER OF; "RV", A JUDICIAL OFFICER A

OCTOBER 6, 2004

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR
NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
B

Administration of Justice:

Cqstigation of trial judge in judicial pronouncement-Propriety of-
Petition by accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings on ground
of delay in trial-Dismissed by High Court making observations against trial c
judge-Held, observations against the judicial officer being uncalled for, shall
stand expunged-It is left to the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 235 of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Article 235-Judicial
Notice.

An accused, facing a criminal trial, filed a petition under s.482 D
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay at the trial.
The Single Judge of the High Court hearing the petition, on 8.4.2001,
directed the trial court to take steps for examining the witnesses on
24.4.2001, and to explain the delay in concluding the trial. When the
petition was taken up on 27.4.2001, the counsel for the accused petitioner E
" stated that only 5 witnesses were examined on the specified date. The Court
directed the petition to be. taken up in the later part of the day and asked
the Registry to seek an explanation from the trial judge meanwhile on
telephone. The response received on telephone, which was a gist of the
written explanation received on the following day, was brought to the
knowledge of the Court. The Court while dismissing the petition, directed F
in the operative part of the order to 'initiate necessary departmental
proceedings' 'looking to the conduct of the trial judge' and 'for not
complying with the order' passed by the High Court on 8.3.2001. The trial
judge filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking expunction of
the observations made and direction given by the Single Judge in the
G
judicial order dated 27.4.2001 to the extent they were against him. The
... writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Judicial Officer filed the
present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
129 .H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. Castigating members of the subordinate judiciary does
no good to the system as placing on public record, the aspersions cast on
them, shakes the very confidence of the people in judicial institutions.
[134-AI

Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001) 7 SCC 148; R.C. Tamrakar
B and Anr. v. Nidi Lekha, [2001) 8 SCC 431 and "Jn the matter of 'K' a
Judicial Officer, [2001] 3 SCC 54, relied on.

1.2. Th_e appellant has in his explanation in writing pointed out the
huge pendency of cases before him, the number of witnesses (about 60)
which were required to be examined before concluding the trial, the
C recalcitrant process serving agency and again the over-burdened clerk in
·the court is~uing the processes, and at the cap of all these the number of
different counsel appearing for a number of accused persons who all insist
on their convenience also being accommodated by the court. The
explanation is reasonable and satisfactorily explains the reasons for the
D alleged non-compliance with the orders made by the Single Judge on 8th
March, 2001. It is a judicially noticeable fact that the subordinate courts
are over-burdened and are called upon to deal with such number of cases
as is totally out of proportion with what a Judge can reasonably be
supposed to handle. [135-C, D, E)

E 1.3. The adverse observations made against the appellant in the order
dated 27.4.2001 and the direction contained therein shall stand expunged
as the same were uncalled for and should not have been made a part of
the judicial order. However, it is left to the High Court to initiate any
proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it under Article
F 235 of the Constitution of India but independently of the observations
made and direction given in the order dated 27th April, 2001. [135-H]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1152
of 2004.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.2003 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Crl. M.P. No. 466 of 2002.

M.R. Calla, Sunil Kumar Jain and S. Borthakur with him for the
Appellant. 1-
•
A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.,
H
INTHEMAITEROF; "RV',AJUDICIALOFFICER[LAHOTI,CJ.) 131

Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. Leave granted.

The appellant before us is a member of Higher Judicial Service, presently B
posted as an Additional District Judge in a Fast Track Court. The appellant ,
was Presiding Judge of the trial court wherein an accused was facing trial
(since 1994) in a criminal case on charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
4 71 of the Indian Penal Code. In the year 2001, the accused filed a petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C.")
seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay at the trial. On C
8th March, 2001 a learned Single Judge of the High Court hearing the petition
filed by the accused, passed an order directing the trial court to take all
possible steps immediately to ensure that the witnesses were positively
examined on 24th April, 2001. The trial court was also directed to explain as
to why for such a· long time, very often process was not issued to the witnesses D
resulting in prolonging of the trial. The petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. was kept pending. It came up for hearing again on 27th April, 2001.
The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner seems to have complained
before the High Court that only 20 witnesses were called by the trial court
to remain present on 24th April, 2001 out· of whom only 5 witnesses turned
up and they were examined while the next date was appointed as 29th May, E
2001. The learned Single Judge hearing the petition seems to have felt agitated
on non-receipt of the explanation from the Presiding Judge of the trial court
in the terms as directed on 8th March, 2001. The case was taken up for
hearing in the earlier part of the day. The Registry was directed to seek an
explanation from the Presiding Judge of the trial court post-haste on telephone F
and the case was directed to be taken up in the later part of the day i.e. post-
lunch. The oral response as received on telephone and brought to the
knowledge of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was a gist of the
explanation which was received on the following day in writing. The Presiding
Officer of the trial court explained that the summons to the witnesses who
were to be examined were issued in time for recording evidence on the G
appointed date i.e. 24th April, 2001. However, only 5 witnesses turned up
and their statements were recorded. In all, there were 60 witnesses to be
examined. The trial court had directed them to be summoned by appointing
3 dates of hearing i.e. 29th May, 2001; 12th June, 2001and26th June, 2001.
The date 29th May, 2001 was appointed for examining such witnesses as had H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A .failed to turn up on 24th April, 200 I while the remaining two dates were
appointed for examining 20 witnesses on each date. So far as the non-issuance
of the process ( and also the non-examination of the witnesses) is concerned
it will be useful to extract and reproduce the following part of the explanation
furnished by the trial court:-

B "Explanation was sought from the concerned Cletk for not issuing
the process earlier. In between the application of the accused for
closing the prosecution evidence, total 11 hearings took place. Out of
which process was issued for three dates. The Clerk explaine~ that
due to excess work load, process could not be issued. Strict instructions
have been given for issue of process to the Clerk.
c
Delay in deciding the case was also due to non-returning the
process by the police. On indicating the orders of the Hon'ble High
Court, while issuing the letter with process dated 24.4.2001, 13
processes were served. Out of which five witnesses were present
whose evidence was recorded.
D
Sir, approximately four thousand cases were pending before this
Court already. Currently, about two thousand five hundred cases are
pending. Different work remains excessive. In this case, there are
four different counsels for the accused. For that the Court· has to
E spend more time for their presence at one time.

Returning of process by the police is also unsatisfactory. At number
of times, processes are not returned. Even in returning the process,
reports are sent incomplete. Even after these circumstances, I assure
you, Sir, that in deciding the cases, every step will be taken for early
F disposal."

On 27th April, 200 I the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the
petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the accused to be
dismissed. However, at the same time in the operative part of the order, the
learned Single Judge directed the Registrar General to 'initiate necessary
G departmental proceedings' against the Presiding Judge of the trial court
'looking to the conduct of the trial judge' and 'for not complying with the
order' passed by the High Court on 8th March, 2001 'in not submitting his
explanation by today and for the gross Cle lay in the trial'. A copy of the order
was directed to be kept on the personal file of the Judge concerned.

H The Subordinate Judge left with no other alternative preferred a petition
INTHEMATIEROF; "RV",AJUDICIALOFFICER[LAHOTI,CJ.] 133

to the High Court seeking expunging of the observations made and direction A
given by the learned Single Judge to the extent to which they were directed
against him. The petition has been disposed of by the impugned order by

... another learned Single Judge of the High Court who has observed that the
explanation which was sought to be provided by the learned Subordinate
Judge in his petition was available to be set up by way of defence in the
disciplinary proceedings directed to be initiated against him and, therefore, it B
could not be said that the order of the High Court dated 27th April, 2001
would result in any manifest injustice or would amount to abuse of process
of any Court. Feeling aggrieved, the Subordinate Judicial Officer has filed
this appeal by special leave.

The High Court has made appearance through a counsel in~tructed by
the Registrar of the High Court. A counter affidavit sworn in· by the Registrar
(Writs) of the' High Court has been filed contesting the petition for special.
leave to appeal.

We have heard tlie learned senior counsel for the appellant-Ju~icial D
Officer as also the learned counsel for the High Court. We are satisfied that
the impugned order of the High Court runs counter to the law laid down by
this Court in a series of pronouncements and, therefore, is liable to be set
aside.
. '
Time and again this Court has emphasised the need for keeping the B
subordinate judiciary under control - disciplinary, administrative and judicial-
of the High Court. However, at the same time this Court has cautioned the
High Courts by stressing upori the need for restraint, care and circumspection
while exercising its power of superintendence lest those who dispense justice
to others should themselves suffer injustice. It would suffice to make .a F
reference to only a few of the decisions. In Mahabir Singh v. State ofHaryana,
(2001] 7 SCC 148, this Court emphasised the need for maintaining judicial
restraint and avoiding unnecessary castigation of (police and) subordinate
judiciary. Again in R.C. Tamrakar and Anr. v. Nidi Lek.ha, (2001] 8 SCC
431, reiterating its observations in several earlier cases this Court held that
judicial restraint is a virtue concomitant of every judicial dispensation. The G
higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right the errors which
could possibly have crept, in the findings, orders or proceedings of the courts
at the lower tiers. "Such powers are certainly n9t for belching diatribe at
judicial personages in lower cadre. It· is well to remember the words of a
jurist that 'a Judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born'." . H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Castigating members of the subordinate judiciary does no good to the system
as placing on public record, the aspersions cast on them, shakes the very
confidence of the people in juqicial institutions. Such remarks, if avoidable
and uncalled for, compel the members of the subordinate judiciary to approach
the High Court seeking expunging of the remarks, which is rather unfortunate.

B "Jn the matter of 'K' a Judicial Officer" [2001] 3 sec 54, a Bench
presided over by the then Chief Justice of India had an occasion for dealing
with such an issue in very many details and from several angles. This Court
reminded the High Courts that the supervisory jurisdiction vesting in them
over the subordinate judiciary was meant to be exercised like a friend,
C philosopher and guide. The power vesting in the higher echelons is not meant
for cracking a whip or for being exercised with vindictiveness on errors
mistakes or failures committed by those in lower echelons which does no
good to the system but has to be exercised for the purpose of toning up the
system so that the mistakes, errors or failures which may have been committed
unknowingly or unwittingly are not repeated. The Court illustratively
D enumerated the consequences which flow onto the subordinate judiciary when
the High Courts indulge in castigating its members, which is at times, an
uncalled for display of judicial might. This Court took care to see that its
observations may not be misunderstood and suggested an alternative, safe
and advisable course so as to be just and fair to the members of the subordinate
E judiciary whose conduct or behaviour having come to notice during the course
of hearing on judicial side did not meet the approval of the High Court. This
Court suggested :-

"The conduct of a judicial officer, unworthy of him, having come
to the notice of a Judge of the High Court hearing a matter on the
F judicial side, the !is may be disposed of by pronouncing upon the
merits thereof as found by him but avoiding in the judicial
pronouncement criticism of, or observations on the "conduct" of the
subordinate judicial officer who had decided the case under scrutiny.
Simultaneously, but separately in-office proceedings may be drawn
up inviting attention of Hon'ble Chief Justice to the facts describing
G the conduct of the Subordinate Judge concerned by sending a
confidential letter or note to the. Chief Justice. It will thereafter be
open to the Chief Justice to deal with the subordinate judicial officer
either at his own level or through the Inspecting Judge or by placing
the matter before the full court for its consideration. The action so
H taken would all be on the administrative side. The Subordinate Judge
IN THE MATTER OF; "RV'', A JUDICIAL OFFICER 135

concerned would have an opportunity of clarifying his position or A
putting forth the circumstances under which he acted. He would not
be condemned unheard and if the decision be adverse to him, it being
on administrative side, he would have some remedy available to him
under the law. He would not be rendered remediless."

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion B
that the learned Single Judge of the High Court passing the order dated 27th
April, 2001 would not probably have made those observations and directed
initiation of departmental inquiry if only he would have waited for a day
when the written and detailed explanation furnished by the Presiding Judge
of the trial court would have been available before him. It is a judicially C
noticeable fact that the subordinate courts are over-burdened and are called
upon to deal with such number of cases as is totally out of proportion wit_h
what a Judge can reasonably be supposed to handle. Yet they do their best.
The appellant has in his explanation pointed out the huge pendency of cases
before him, the number of witnesses (about 60) which were required to be
examined before concluding the trial, the recalcitrant process serving agency D
and again the over-burdened Clerk in the Court issuing the processes -
summonses and warrants, and at the ..:ap of all these the number of different
counsel appearing for a number of accused persons who all insist on their
convenience also being accommodated by the Court. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court also acted with undue haste inasmuch as he insisted E
on the explanation being called for from the trial Judge on that very day and
that too telephonically. The explanation dated 28th April, 2001, in m·r opinion,
is reasonable and satisfactorily explains the reasons for the alleged non-
compliance with the orders made by the learned Single Judge on 8th March,
2001.
F
The High Court in its impugned order ought to have directed expunging
of the remarks contained in the order dated 27th April, 2001 and prejudicial
to the appellant.

The appeal is allowed. The petition filed before the High Court by RV,
the member of the subordinate judiciary and disposed of by the impugned G
order shall stand allowed. The adverse observations made against the appellant
in the order dated. 27th April, 2001 and the direction contained therein shall
stand expunged.

Before parting, we make it clear that we fiave directed the observations
being expunged and directions contained in the judicial order being set aside H
A
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

as we think that the same were uncalled for and should not have been made
a part of the judicial order more so made without affording the Judicial
Officer an opportunity of hearing. However, this order would not come in the
-
way of the High Court if it chooses to initiate any proceedings in exercise of ,(

the jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 235 of the Constitution of India
B but independently of the observatiOns made and direction given in the order
dated 27th April, 200 I.

R.P. Appeal allowed.