Can closure of preliminary inquiry against judicial officer be challenged? Punjab and Haryana High Court answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the closure of a preliminary enquiry into a complaint against a judicial officer can be subject to judicial review but only in exceptional circumstances [Amit Kumar vs The State of Haryana and others].

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said that the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over an administrative decision to close a preliminary enquiry.

"Once the complaint submitted on administrative side against a Judicial Officer is processed as per laid down norms, decision to close preliminary enquiry is not amenable to judicial review, except in cases of proven malafides, violation of any fundamental right or the impugned decision being so abhorrent to the basic tenets of law that it shakes the conscious of a common man,” the Court ruled.

The Court was dealing with a petition moved by a Ludhiana-based lawyer, Amit Kumar, who had earlier complained against a judicial officer in Haryana.

He had challenged an order passed on the administrative side to close a preliminary inquiry against the said judicial officer, after his reply to the allegations levelled against him was found to be satisfactory.

Kumar (the complainant) also urged the High Court to direct the State to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer and withdraw his judicial work.

At the outset, the High Court noted that a member of the Superior Judicial Service appointed in terms of Article 233 of the Constitution enjoys independence from the Executive. The High Court is the sole competent authority to decide on disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer, it added.

“The administrative set up of the High Court is vested with enough discretionary powers to decide whether the material placed in shape of complaint, affidavit of the complainant and response of the Judicial Officer, are sufficient to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Judicial Officer concerned or not,” the Court stressed.

In the present case, the Court noted that the complaint against the judicial officer pertained to his behaviour and not any moral turpitude. The Administrative Judge of the concerned district, where the judicial officer was posted, undertook a preliminary inquiry into the allegations and found that material on record was insufficient for initiating proceedings, it added.

The Court opined that the complainant cannot now prevail upon the disciplinary authority to take a particular view. This preliminary enquiry is to be left entirely to the discretion of the controlling or disciplinary authority without any extraneous interference, including from the complainant, it stressed.

“Any different view than the one indicated above can be deleterious to the independence of judiciary,” the Court further said.

The Court thus dismissed the plea.

Advocate Amit Kumar appeared in person.

Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan appeared for the State of Haryana. Advocate Kanwal Goyal appeared for the High Court (administrative side).

[Read Judgment]