Delhi HC expunges remarks passed against DCP, cautions judges on passing strictures against authorities

New Delhi [India], March 2 : The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks passed by the trial court against the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of North East Delhi, and also recalled the bailable warrant issued against him.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expunged the remarks passed by the trial court and directed them to be cautious while passing strictures against investigation authorities and police officers since they may impact their reputation.
Justice Sharma said, "The loss of reputation suffered by an officer may not get restored even if the remarks are expunged by a higher court."
"Therefore, a thin wall that exists between the adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on part of authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind and perspective," Justice Sharma pointed out in the judgement passed on March 1.
The court said that it is not to be forgotten by courts that though the remedy of expunction of strictures is available to the recipient of strictures, many times, the strictures live on, not only in public memory but also in the memory of the recipient itself.
"Social memories tend to stigmatize the recipient, though the person passing strictures will enjoy judicial immunity due to his adjudicatory freedom of expression," the judge said.
In the present case, the learned Trial Court displeased due to the delay in the trial, had passed the orders without realising that the cause behind the delay was not the recipient of the strictures herein but the reasons beyond his control, he further said.
The judicial officers, however, have to note the difference between judicial findings and passing of strictures, the judge added.
While there can be no doubt about the importance of judicial free speech, it being the hallmark of a free and fair judiciary, judicial self-restraint is an obligation that the judiciary recognizes as created by and for themselves, the judgement said.
The bench said in the judgement that the Indian judiciary has always followed the self-imposed judicial civility codes and has, through the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court as well as High Courts, flagged the issue of unwarranted judicial strictures which stigmatize and at times even penalize the recipient of strictures.
The judicial officer had to remain conscious of the fact that passion for the speedy trial solely should not have guided him to pass such strictures to express judicial discontent more so since the delay in filing FSL was beyond his (petitioner's) control.
The HC has directed all the judicial officers to exercise utmost restraint and judicial discipline while deciding the cases before them and refrain from judging the credibility of police officers and passing scathing and disparaging remarks against them when the same is not required for the adjudication of matters before them.
This Court remains conscious of the fact that the judicial words, utterances, and decisions help, ensure a society which follows rule of law. However, at times, unwarranted judicial utterances can wound and at times adversely affect or destroy the career and confidence of the recipient of strictures, the High court said.
The Courts are not powerless to indicate any lapse or omission on part of investigating agencies, or any disobedience of the directions of the Court. The courts have to take recourse to the judicial precedents and the High Court Rules instead of taking into their own hands the duty of conducting enquiries, etc. and have to leave the same to the parent department and disciplinary authority of the police officers concerned, the judgement said.
The bench has directed the Registrar General of Delhi HC to forward a copy of this judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges of Delhi who shall ensure the circulation of this judgment among all the Judicial Officers in their Courts for sensitization of Judicial Officers on this issue.
A copy be also forwarded to Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy for taking note of its contents, the court directed.
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East Delhi, moved a petition seeking quashing and setting aside of orders of October 13, 2022, November 24, 2022, and December 7, 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in a Sessions Case.
On October 13, 2022, the learned Trial Court made certain remarks against the petitioner as well as the IO, SHO and ACP concerned by using the terms "negligent" and "insensitive", the judgement noted.
On November 24, 2022, the learned Trial court again passed remarks against the petitioner, wherein it was again mentioned that IO, SHO and the DCP, North East (i.e. petitioner) are negligent persons. The learned Trial Court was also pleased to summon in person, the IO/ACP and DCP North-East, it added.
On December 7, 2022, the learned Trial Court again passed certain remarks against the petitioner and other police officers blaming them for the delay in filing of FSL report and turning down the request for exemption from the personal appearance of the petitioner and ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner, the judgement noted.