Judicial Strictures Must Be Passed With Utmost Circumspection, Criticism May Have Devastating Effect On Professional Career Of Officers: Delhi High Court
Case: Ajit Kumar V. State (Nct Of Delhi)
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: W.P. (CRL.) 2236/2022
Court Observation: “Use of denigrating remarks against anyone, especially against police officials impeaching their credibility and questioning their sense of dedication towards duty, is not the best course adopted by a judicial officer, that too when the same is not required for the adjudication of the case before the Court. Such criticism may have a devastating effect on the professional career of an officer,”
“undermines the majesty of the court and its power to pass orders pointing out any disobedience on part of police officers or fault in any investigation.”
“Social memories that stigmatize a person in society or in one‟s department or social circles are often as permanent as the judgments and orders,”
“The judicial power comes with utmost responsibility to exercise adjudicatory liberty to express oneself. Judicial strictures against a police officer to the extent as expressed in the present case are problematic though every disapproval expressed by exercise of adjudicatory liberty of expression may not fall in the realm of lack of judicial restraint,”
“Such observations have the effect of stigmatizing without conviction, sentencing without inquiry and affect career in future of an officer which had to be left to the internal administrative vigilance and disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by the parent department of the officer in question,”
“In the relevant cases, recourse could have been taken to the Delhi Police Act and the relevant Sections under law under which the Court can issue notice and initiate appropriate action if so warranted in a particular case. However, to direct the authority concerned to initiate action as mentioned in the impugned order and thereafter, ask for compliance to be filed and pass remarks as in the impugned order was unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case,”
Previous Posts
Adopted Child Entitled To Seek Compassionate Appointment: Karnataka High Court
