SC to HCs: Personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided, Read Judgment

"The High Court's actions in this case were both unwarranted and illegal," stated the Supreme Court in a recent judgment addressing concerns raised over the handling of bail applications by judicial officers.

SC Bench further stated that, "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 High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side".

This observation came in a case where a District and Sessions Judge's bail order, which was criticized by the High Court, led to an unprecedented sequence of events involving judicial scrutiny and administrative action. The Supreme Court further emphasized that judicial officers should not be personally criticized in judgments, as it could harm their careers.

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge in Rajasthan, rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged with serious offences under the IPC and Arms Act. The accused later applied for bail before the High Court, which granted bail and made adverse observations about the appellant's handling of the case. The High Court noted that the appellant failed to follow the directions set in a previous case (Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan) regarding the inclusion of criminal antecedents in a prescribed tabular format.

Despite the appellant's explanation, citing work pressure as the reason for the omission, the High Court found non-compliance with judicial instructions and directed the appellant to submit reports on subsequent bail orders. The High Court further criticized the appellant for not adhering to these directions and forwarded the matter to the Chief Justice for further action due to judicial indiscipline.

The appellant’s senior counsel argued that the High Court's insistence on compliance with directions issued in the Jugal Kishore case was improper, particularly after this Court's order on 20th February 2023, which directed the removal of certain paragraphs from the June 2021 order. The counsel contended that the High Court overstepped by prescribing a specific format for including antecedents in bail orders, thus interfering with the judicial discretion of Sessions Judges. He also argued that the strictures passed against the appellant were unwarranted and could harm the appellant’s judicial career, citing the ruling in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and Others to support the claim.

The Court reviewed the directions issued by the High Court in the Jugal Kishore case, which outlined the following key points:

• Trial Courts must provide complete details of the accused's antecedents when allowing or disallowing a bail application.
• If the accused has no antecedents, the Court must record this fact.
• If antecedents exist, they must be presented in a tabular format.

The Court confirmed that the principles for deciding bail applications are well-established. While Constitutional Courts can set out guidelines for granting bail, they cannot dictate the form or structure of the orders issued by Trial Courts. The Court stated, “What the High Court has done...cannot be construed as mandatory directions,” emphasizing that the direction to include a tabular chart of antecedents is a suggestion, not a binding requirement.

The Court clarified that the existence of antecedents is just one factor in the bail decision. In cases where the accused presents a strong prima facie case or has been incarcerated for a long time, antecedents may not be a valid reason to deny bail. In such instances, the Court may grant bail regardless of antecedents, and the requirement to present them in a tabular form may not apply.

The Court further stated that if the prosecution submits information about the accused's antecedents, the Court need not include all the details as per the High Court’s directions in Jugal Kishore case. It is sufficient for the Court to refer to the nature of the offenses the accused is charged with.

The Court criticized the High Court’s handling of the appellant’s non-compliance with these directions, pointing out that the High Court wrongly treated it as an act of indiscipline or contempt. It emphasized, “We fail to understand how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion.” The Court also condemned the High Court’s decision to call for explanations and reports from the appellant, describing it as a waste of judicial time.

The Court concluded that the directions from Jugal Kishore case should not be seen as mandatory. Failure to comply with them should not be viewed as indiscipline or contempt.

In reference to the Sonu Agnihotri case, the Court noted that higher courts can correct errors made by subordinate courts, but must refrain from personally criticizing judicial officers. It stated, “personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided,” highlighting the potential damage such criticism can cause to a judge’s career.

In its final assessment, the Court ruled that the High Court’s actions in this case were both unwarranted and illegal, urging greater restraint and fairness in evaluating the conduct of judicial officers.

The Court expunged all adverse remarks in the impugned order dated 5th May 2023, including findings of disobedience and indiscipline, and set aside the direction to place the case before the Chief Justice. It also set aside the observations in the orders dated 4th April 2023 and 25th April 2023, clarifying that they could not be used for administrative action against the appellant. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to be placed before the Chief Justice. The appeal was allowed on these terms.

Picture Source :