.jpg)
New Delhi, Dec 18: A higher court cannot seek an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order, stated the Supreme Court, while expugning the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a District & Sessions Judge.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by a Judicial officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against him.
The High Court observed that the Judicial Officer, while rejecting a bail application, did not incorporate the details of the criminal antecedents of the accused as mandated by an earlier judgment of the High Court. Though the judge recorded the criminal cases pending against the accused, that was not done in the prescribed tabular chart format.
The High Court observed that this amounted to "indiscipline" and "may also amount to contempt" and sought an explanation from him. In the impugned order, the single judge of the High Court made strong observations against the judicial officer, saying that he was liable for judicial indiscipline and invited the attention of the High Court Chief Justice to the matter for necessary action.
Firstly, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued to incorporate a chart containing antecedents of the accused cannot be read as mandatory. "If a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts," the Court said.
Also, the similar directions issued by the High Court in another case was set aside by the Supreme Court in an earlier case in 2023( by order dated 20th February 2023 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11675-11676 of 2022).
Secondly, the Court disapproved of the High Court seeking an explanation from the judge for a judicial action. Court added that explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side.
The appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply. With the utmost respect to the High Court, undertaking such an exercise was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court which has a huge pendency," the judgment added.
Apex Court added that the High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side," the Court held.
|