Stop ‘oppressing’ district courts: Supreme Court warns high courts for ‘adverse remarks’ against judges

Such disparaging remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the judicial officer in addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a whole, said the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Disparaging remarks may ruin career of judicial officer

• While finding infirmities in the order passed by a judicial officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned judicial officer in a judicial dispensation.
• Such disparaging remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the judicial officer in addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a whole.
• Power of superintendence conferred upon the high courts by Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to be used as a tool of oppression but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding the judicial officers in the state.
• In some high courts an in-house mechanism is already in place to take care of a situation, whenever any flaw or infirmity is noted in any order passed by the trial judge by the high court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction.
• The observations of the Hon’ble Judge/Bench on the merits or quality of the order or the proceedings of the presiding officer of the trial Court can be noted in a remark slip.
• This would be placed before the administrative judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court, as the case may be, for necessary follow-up action.
• It would be highly advisable if a similar practice of recording remarks on various facets of the judgments/orders passed by officers in the district judiciary is adopted by all high courts for appropriate action on the administrative side.

Tenancy dispute root cause

The dispute originated from a tenancy conflict between the appellant and the complainant over a portion of a building. In 2016, the complainant filed a civil suit seeking declaration of her tenancy rights.

The accused had been granted bail by a magistrate in 2018 in the matter, which was later confirmed. The complainant challenged the bail by filing a criminal revision before the Calcutta High Court in 2018, but the matter remained pending for several years.

Eventually, on March 6, a single judge of the high court allowed the revision and set aside the bail orders, citing procedural irregularities and lack of proper reasoning.

Following this, the accused was re-arrested and produced before the magistrate, who again granted him bail on March 16. The high court’s order cancelling bail was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

High Court order “perverse”

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the high court’s reasoning, holding that the cancellation of bail after such a long lapse of time, and on technical grounds, was legally unsustainable.

It reiterated that once bail is granted, it cannot be set aside mechanically unless there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty or interference with justice.

The Supreme Court noted that the high court had failed to consider crucial facts, including that the dispute bore significant civil overtones and that there was no material indicating any real threat to the complainant’s safety.

Strictures against judicial officer quashed

The apex court also expunged adverse remarks made by the high court against the magistrate, including directions to place the order in the officer’s annual confidential report (ACR) and to initiate explanations. It termed such observations “wholly misplaced and uncalled for”

The Supreme Court said that while judicial orders of subordinate courts can be scrutinised, criticism must remain measured and institutional, rather than personal or punitive in tone.

Call for institutional mechanisms

To address errors in trial court orders without harming judicial officers, the court suggested the adoption of internal administrative mechanisms. It pointed to practices in some high courts where remarks on judgments are recorded separately and placed before administrative judges for appropriate action, rather than being included as strictures in open court orders.

The registry has been directed to circulate the judgment to all high courts for consideration, signalling the Supreme Court’s intent to initiate systemic reform in how judicial accountability is handled.