The Delhi High Court recently observed that a higher court's decision to set aside or modify a lower court's order is not a reflection of the ability or integrity of the judge who passed such an order [Sanjay Kumar Sain vs State of NCT of Delhi].

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dealing with an additional sessions judge's plea.

He had filed an application to delete certain allegedly adverse remarks made against him by the High Court while deleting his criticism of the Delhi police in an order.

Justice Sharma, however, clarified that the High Court's remarks were not personally directed at the sessions judge's competence.

"The recording of reasons while setting aside an order cannot, by itself, be construed as a reflection on the competence, integrity, or ability of the judicial officer who passed the order, unless there are specific and express observations to that effect," she explained.

Justice Sharma noted that a hierarchical scrutiny of judicial orders is an essential feature of the Indian judicial system. When litigants challenge court orders before appellate courts, the higher courts only examine the correctness of the order under challenge, she said.

The appellate court does not sit in judgment over the personal competence or otherwise of the judge who authored the challenged order, unless the order is absolutely perverse and absolutely contrary to statutory law and settled position of law, she added.

“Merely because an order of the Trial Court is set aside or modified or stayed by the High Court or modified to some extent or set aside to some extent, as in the present case, no inference can be drawn against the general competence, ability or integrity of the concerned judicial officer in the absence of any specific adverse observations," she emphasised.

The High Court further pointed out,

"If it were to be presumed that the passing of an order by a higher court, staying or setting aside an order of the Trial Court, amounts to commenting on the integrity of the Trial Court, no case could ever be decided by a higher Court."

By way of background, the additional sessions judge had earlier criticised a Delhi police official in certain orders, after taking note of certain delays in producing forensic evidence in a drugs case.

The police official concerned, Sanjay Sain, moved a petition before the High Court to expunge such critical remarks made against him by the additional sessions judge in three orders.

The High Court expunged the remarks against Sain by a judgment passed on March 1, 2023. The High Court also noted that the trial court's remarks against the police officials were unnecessary. However, it added that there was no ill intention on the trial court's part in making such remarks, since the court was only worried about the delays noticed in the case.

The High Court had also ordered the circulation of this judgment among judicial officers in Delhi.

The trial court judge said that this affected his reputation and career, as his name was also mentioned when the High Court judgment was circulated. He, therefore, moved an application seeking the recall of the High Court's March 2023 judgment, particularly any adverse comments made against him.

Justice Sharma, however, observed that the High Court's decision to delete the trial judge's critical comments against the police officers cannot be treated as a comment on the judge's competence and integrity.

“Merely expunging the observations made against the petitioner – a police officer, by the present recall applicant – a judicial officer, cannot be treated as a reflection on the competence and integrity of the judicial officer in question or on the work done by him, as a judge, over the last several years,” she said.

The High Court further noted that the judicial officer was not named in the March 2023 judgment, nor were any personal observations made against him.

Justice Sharma added that it is not extraordinary or uncommon for a higher court to stay or modify a lower court’s decision, as such interventions are an inherent part of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court assured that unless a specific observation is made by the higher court regarding the lower court judge’s competence, no such inference can be drawn.

“Unless and until a specific observation regarding the competence, integrity, or conduct of the judge is made by the higher court, no such inference can be drawn merely because an order has been set aside on the ground that it was found to be legally unsustainable, or because certain observations made against any party to the litigation, or even against counsel appearing for a party, were found to be unjustified, illegal, or unnecessarily harsh within the parameters of settled principles of law, and consequently set aside, modified, or stayed by the higher court,” the Court said.

Nevertheless, it also expressly clarified that no adverse remarks were made against the trial court judge in the High Court's March 2023 judgment, nor should it affect his career prospects.

"Considering the anxiety expressed by the applicant, it is, by way of abundant caution, clarified that the observations made in the judgment dated 01.03.2023 were confined solely to the adjudication of the writ petition and the same may not be treated as adverse remarks against the applicant for the purposes of recording or assessing his Annual Confidential Report. It is further clarified that the said observations shall not be construed as reflecting upon his competence or integrity in any manner," the High Court clarified.

With these observations, the Court closed the application.

Advocates Prabhav Ralli, Samraat Saxena, Deeya Mittal and Devvrat Aryan appeared for Sain.

Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta appeared for the State.

Advocates Sagar Suri and Kabir Sagar Ghosh appeared for the additional sessions judge. 

[Read judgment]