The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up certain litigants for filing a writ petition seeking permission to lodge a first information report (FIR) against a sitting district court judge for alleged forgery..A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that according to the Supreme Court’s judgment, an FIR against a judicial officer in relation to his official work can only be lodged after the permission of the Chief Justice on the original side. “The question is how to lodge an FIR. For that purpose, you can’t file a writ petition. Got it?” the Bench remarked. It also took exception to the petitioners uploading a video recording of the trial court proceedings on YouTube. While the counsel appearing for the petitioner maintained that the video can only be accessed through the link provided in the petition, the Bench cautioned,“This is an open court. You are making your submissions in front of hundreds of lawyers. Do you feel your grievances will not be heard that you are making use of YouTube? We are cautioning you…Don’t do all this. It is neither in your interest nor in the institution’s interest." .Counsel appearing for the petitioner had argued that the judicial officer had “concocted” an order of April 2024 to favour the opposite side and despite repeated objections, the judge refused to recuse from hearing the case.After the Court pointed out that a decision on allowing FIR against a judge can only be taken on the administrative side by the Chief Justice, the petitioners' counsel requested the Court to treat the writ petition as a letter to the Chief Justice.However, the Court rejected the submission and said that it would decide the matter finally. .Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the Delhi Police and the State of Delhi. He submitted that the petitioner was only attempting to malign the judicial officer and even a High Court judge has criticised the conduct of the petitioner. Bhandari asked the Court to invoke Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner. The law criminalises making a fraudulent/dishonest claim in court. He added that the order that the petitioner is referring to was challenged in the High Court and that sustained orders have been passed in it. Meanwhile, Advocate Radhika Bishwajit Dubey appeared for the High Court of Delhi and stated that several complaints had been made in this regard, all of which were put to the vigilance committee. The High Court asked Dubey and Bhandari to get the compilation of these documents. It clarified that it was not issuing notice in the matter and that it would hear the case again next week.
