The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said personal criticism of judges or recording findings on the conduct of judges in judgments must be avoided as the judges are human beings and all human beings are prone to committing mistakes.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by Sonu Agnihotri, serving as Additional Sessions judge here, against the Delhi High Court's order for making adverse remarks against him for his order seeking action against Investigating Officer and SHO while dealing with an anticipatory bail plea.
"In a given case, after writing several sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise. The higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a judicial officer, it causes prejudice to the judicial officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes," the bench said.
The court said the High Court observed that the appellant ‘embarked on an inexorable quest’, which ought to have been avoided. Further, the bench said paragraph 14 contained advice to the appellant to be circumspect and to exercise care and caution in future.
"The High Court could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers. That can only be done on the administrative side in an appropriate case," the bench said.
The court also said describing the appellant's approach as 'judicial misadventure' was also "improper".
"To err is human. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened," the bench said.
The bench said judges work in stress and every judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors.
The bench said in the year 2002, in the case of “All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors (2002), this court passed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million.
"However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased. The judges have to work under stress. Every Judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors," the bench said.
The bench pointed out the superior courts exercising their powers can set aside erroneous orders and expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations.
"While doing so, the superior courts can legitimately criticise the orders passed by the trial courts or the appellate courts by giving reasons. There can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by using strong language. However, such observations must always be in the context of errors in the impugned orders," the bench said.
"While doing so, the courts have to show restraint, and adverse comments on the personal conduct and calibre of the judicial officer should be avoided. There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a judicial officer. The first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided," the bench added.
The court said whenever action is proposed against a judicial officer on the administrative side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his position. But if such personal adverse observations are made in a judgment, the judicial officer’s career gets adversely affected, it noted.
"We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. No court can be called a “subordinate court”. Here, we refer to “subordinate” courts only in the context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction," the bench said.