The Supreme Court on Friday lamented judicial workload has only gone up even though the judge to population ration is not even 25 per million..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said that judges are bound to make mistakes, given the kind of stress they operate under."Judges are human beings. All human beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err is human. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened. In the year 2002, in the case of “All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., this Court passed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased," the Court observed.Judges, irrespective of their post and status, are likely to commit errors due to the pressure of work or otherwise, the Bench added. .Therefore, superior courts should show restraint in making adverse remarks against judges who err, the top court said."The higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.".The observations came in a verdict wherein the Supreme Court allowed a plea by a Delhi judicial officer to expunge adverse remarks made against him by the Delhi High Court after he criticised the Delhi police in a judicial order.The Bench noted that adverse comments harm a judge's career and even constitutional courts are prone to making mistakes, it was added."Whenever action is proposed against a judicial officer on the administrative side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his position. But if such personal adverse observations are made in a judgment, the Judicial Officer’s career gets adversely affected.".Advocate Sagar Suri appeared for the judge..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court on Friday lamented judicial workload has only gone up even though the judge to population ration is not even 25 per million..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said that judges are bound to make mistakes, given the kind of stress they operate under."Judges are human beings. All human beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err is human. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened. In the year 2002, in the case of “All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., this Court passed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased," the Court observed.Judges, irrespective of their post and status, are likely to commit errors due to the pressure of work or otherwise, the Bench added. .Therefore, superior courts should show restraint in making adverse remarks against judges who err, the top court said."The higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided.".The observations came in a verdict wherein the Supreme Court allowed a plea by a Delhi judicial officer to expunge adverse remarks made against him by the Delhi High Court after he criticised the Delhi police in a judicial order.The Bench noted that adverse comments harm a judge's career and even constitutional courts are prone to making mistakes, it was added."Whenever action is proposed against a judicial officer on the administrative side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his position. But if such personal adverse observations are made in a judgment, the Judicial Officer’s career gets adversely affected.".Advocate Sagar Suri appeared for the judge..[Read Judgment]
