Aarohi Girish Dhumale
The Supreme Court on 17th December, 2024, observed that directing a Judicial Officer to provide an explanation through a judicial order is not appropriate, and such an explanation should only be sought on the administrative side.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a criminal appeal by a District and Sessions Judge from the Rajasthan Judicial Services for the quashing of the unfavorable directions issued against him. The Bench averted that it is beyond their understanding as to how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt without following the suggestion incorporated in paragraph 9 of Jugal Kishore’s case. Further, even on assuming that the appellant was indisciplined, the High Court should not have passed an order asking for an explanation from a judicial officer. Explanation of a judicial officer other the administrative side is inappropriate.
The Appellant, who joined the Judicial Services in 1993, filed an appeal to remove the negative remarks made against him and to cancel the unfavorable directions issued. The Appellant had decided on a bail application for an accused charged with offences under Section 307 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3, 5, and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The Appellant rejected the bail application and the accused to file a bail application before the High Court. The High Court granted bail to the accused and made certain remarks and gave directions against the Appellant while doing so. Thus, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The division bench of the Supreme Court stated that in a particular case, if necessary, the be included in every bail order in a specific format, it would interfere with the discretion granted to Trial Courts. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the observations in paragraph 9 of the Jugal Kishore case should not be interpreted as mandatory instructions for Criminal Courts. At most, they can be considered as a suggestion, which does not need to be followed in every case.
The Court also emphasized that the observations made in paragraph 9 of the Jugal Kishore case should not be considered mandatory directions for Criminal Courts but a suggestion.
The Court further elaborated that the Appellant had no option but to respond and was compelled to apologize by submitting the reply. Engaging in such an exercise was a needless expenditure of the High Court’s valuable time, especially considering its significant backlog of cases
The Supreme Court said that the High Court should have shown restraint and allowed the appeal.
Case Name: Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan
Case Citation: 2024 INSC 994
Bench: Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Click here to access the order dated 17.12.2024