AJIT KUMAR vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 22.09.2023
Pronounced on: 17.10.2023
+ W.P.(CRL) 2236/2022
AJIT KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) alongwith Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Arjit Sharma, Advocates for the State.
Mr. Sagar Puri, Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Siddhant Nath and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocates for the applicant in CRL.M.A. 12072/2023
+ W.P.(CRL) 2237/2022
AJIT KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) alongwith Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Arjit Sharma, Advocates for the State.
Mr. Sagar Puri, Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Siddhant Nath and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocates for the applicant in CRL.M.A. 12371/2023
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
CRL.M.A. 12072/2023 (for) in W.P.(CRL) 2236/2022
CRL.M.A. 12371/2023 (for) in W.P.(CRL) 2237/2022
1. These applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) have been filed on behalf of applicant seeking recalling of common judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed in above-captioned writ petitions thereby praying inter alia for expunging/deletion of remarks made against the applicant i.e. then learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the said judgment passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this Court was deliberately mislead to believe that firstly, there was no lapse on the part of petitioner and secondly, that directions passed by the applicant against petitioner were disproportionate and not in accordance with law. It is stated that directions issued by the applicant and the observations made against the petitioner were permissible as per Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is further submitted the judgment dated 22.11.2022 was circulated among all judicial officers of Delhi as per the direction of this Court, however, the circular issued for the said purpose also contained the name of the applicant as one of the addressee. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the observations made in paragraph nos. 30 to 38 of the judgment dated 22.11.2022 are in the nature of strictures against the applicant i.e. a judicial officer and, therefore, be expunged from the judgment.
3. The arguments addressed by learned counsel for the applicant have been heard and material placed on record by the applicant has been considered.
4. This Court has gone through the contents of paragraph nos. 30 to 38 of the judgment dated 22.11.2022, however, this Court is of the opinion that the observations made in the said paragraphs do not refer to the applicant at all, but to the orders passed by the learned ASJ. While this Court was dealing with the jurisprudence of strictures, this Court was highly conscious of its duty of itself not indulging in passing any disparaging or sweeping remarks against any person including the learned ASJ.
5. It is crucial to consider that in the judicial hierarchical system that works in our country, an order passed by one court can be challenged as per law in the superior court. Thus, an order passed by a Magisterial Court can as per law be challenged before the Sessions Court, orders of the Sessions Court can be challenged before the High Court and an order passed by the High Court will either go to Division Bench and/or thereafter, if challenged, to the Honble Apex Court. The hierarchical system of judicial adjudication is intended to ensure that in case any incorrect law is applied or if the judicial adjudication of a matter by one particular court is not as per law and judicial precedents, or is against principles of natural justice, etc., the same can be corrected by its immediate higher court. Therefore, it is to be remembered that the process of challenging of an order when placed before a higher court does not bring into question, in majority of cases, the judge passing the order, but the order passed by judge, and there is a marked difference between the two. It is not the judge who is in question, scrutiny, or adjudication, rather the order passed by the judge, to the best of his capabilities, which can be scrutinized and questioned by a higher court. In these circumstances, even the orders of this Court are challenged and at times set aside by the Honble Supreme Court which is in line with judicial hierarchical system of our country. Therefore, in this Courts opinion, the vociferous repeated argument of the learned counsel for the applicant does not have merit since there is no observation in the said paragraphs which refers to the judge in question i.e. the applicant in a manner which can be termed as strictures against him or can affect his future prospects.
6. In case, such applications are filed before the Courts, it will become impossible for the higher courts to decide and set aside any order passed by a court whose order has been impugned before it. While adjudicating a case and appreciating an order assailed before it, the higher court has to refer to its merits and as to why it is correct or incorrect as per law, as to whether it suffers from any infirmity or not, whether the court has exceeded its jurisdiction, whether the order is according to the judicial precedents and principles of natural justice as well as the jurisprudence it deals with. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this Court has neither referred to the judicial competence of the judge in question/applicant nor anything on his personal capacity as a judicial officer, but had referred only to the contents of the impugned order and, therefore, to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the application filed before it.
7. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the prayer seeking re-call of the judgment dated 22.11.2022 and deletion of certain paragraphs from the judgment stands rejected.
8. This Court, however, has been disturbed by the fact pointed out before it by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the judgment was ordered to be circulated for the benefit of all learned judicial officers of Delhi, the name of the concerned judicial officer i.e. the applicant was mentioned in the circular of the Registry. This Court in the judgment dated 22.11.2022 had only ordered the judgment to be circulated among all judicial officers, which is done through learned Principal & District Sessions Judge of each district and to be forwarded to the Delhi Judicial Academy, and had not passed any order that the order be communicated to the concerned Judge. However, in case it was even to be sent to the judge concerned, the name of the judicial officer should hot have been mentioned in the circular/covering letter which was to be circulated to all the judicial officers of Delhi. Needless to say, on the same principles, when the judgment in this case was passed, the name of the judicial officer in question was not mentioned even once in the entire judgment, being conscious of the fact that it was the judicial correctness of the order which was in question and under consideration and not the judicial competence of the judicial officer concerned.
9. The judgment dated 22.11.2022 of this Court had also referred to the concerned Court by its number and designation, and not by the name of the judicial officer. Needless to say, it is individual choice of every Court/Bench concerned to include or not include the name of judicial officer whose order is under challenge. Having been a proud member of the Delhi Judicial fraternity, this Court can understand, appreciate and feel as to how the judicial officer may feel in case his/her name is circulated along with the judgment to all the judicial officers in Delhi and the circular being in public domain. The discomfort felt in such circumstances cannot be undermined, and thus, this Court speaking for itself, directs that henceforth, any order directed to be circulated by this Bench/undersigned will not find mention of the concerned judicial officers name in the covering letter/circular circulated by the Registry to the District Courts and will refer to court number concerned as the judges preside over the courts, and the courts do not preside over the judges.
10. At the cost of repetition, this Court wants to place on record its highest respect for all the judicial officers of Delhi and the fact that it is their orders impugned before this Court which come under scrutiny and question while discharging this Courts judicial functions and not the judicial officers themselves. This Court also hopes that this order acts as a healing balm for the judicial officer concerned/applicant since the circulation of his name along with the judgment dated 22.11.2022 has hurt him and caused discomfort to him.
11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observations, the present applications stands disposed of.
12. The Registry shall take note of the directions issued hereinabove.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 17, 2023/zp
W.P. (CRL.) 2236/2022 & connected matter Page 1 of 7