‘Change in order not reflection of a judge’s ability’: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court ruled that higher court orders do not reflect on a lower judge's competence, affirming judicial scrutiny as essential in court hierarchy.

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that any order by higher courts staying, modifying, or interfering with a lower court order should not be seen as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order, as such judicial scrutiny is an inherent feature of the hierarchical structure of courts.

The verdict comes days after ex-Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and others accused in the excise policy case wrote to Delhi High Court chief justice seeking transfer of the CBI's plea against their discharge from the bench of justice Sharma to another bench, citing apprehension of a fair hearing. (HT_PRINT)

In a 12-page ruling, justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that if every order of a higher court staying or setting aside a trial court’s decision is presumed to be a comment on the integrity of the judge, it would become impossible for higher courts to adjudicate cases.

“The fact that an order passed by a court, whether trial court or even high court, is stayed, modified, or otherwise interfered with by a higher court such as high court or Supreme Court respectively, cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reflection on the competence or ability of the judge who passed the order. Such judicial scrutiny is an inherent feature of the hierarchical structure of courts and forms part of the ordinary course of the adjudicatory process,” the judge said.

The verdict comes days after former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others accused in the excise policy case wrote to Delhi High Court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, seeking transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s plea against their discharge from the bench of justice Sharma to another bench, citing apprehension of a fair hearing.

The present order was passed while deciding an application filed by a judicial officer seeking recall of the high court’s March 2023 judgment and expunction of adverse remarks made against him. In that verdict, his judicial directions were termed as “disproportionate.”

The judicial officer contended the judgment was delivered on the very first date of listing without issuing notice or allowing him to be heard. He further submitted that the ruling was circulated by the registrar general of the Delhi High Court while specifically naming him, causing grave prejudice to his reputation and service record despite an unblemished career since his induction into the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

He added that the judgment was subsequently cited by other benches, leading to adverse observations against him. As a result, the officer, serving as a Special Judge under the NDPS Act, was transferred to the district judiciary in May 2024 and suffered a downgrade in his annual confidential report.

The court refused to recall the verdict, concluding no remarks touching upon the judicial officer’s competence were made in the March 2023 verdict. However, considering his anxiety, it clarified that the observations were confined solely to adjudicating the case and should not be treated as adverse remarks for recording his ACR.

“Firstly, this court had neither referred to nor recorded the name of the applicant at any place in the judgment dated 01.03.2023 and had only referred to the trial court, as the court was examining the legality of the orders passed by the court below and not the conduct of any particular judicial officer,” justice Sharma said.

The order added that the observations may not be treated as adverse remarks against the applicant for recording his Annual Confidential Report and shall not be construed as reflecting upon his competence or integrity in any manner.