SONU AGNIHOTRI versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 861, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 861 : 2024 INSC 888
Sonu Agnihotri 
v. 
Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 388-389 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah and  
Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant-Judicial Officer has preferred these appeals for 
expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in the 
impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by the Delhi High Court.
Headnotes†
Judicial Service – Expunging of adverse findings/remarks – 
Appellant-Judicial Officer passed some strict orders against 
police officials – He pointed out flaws in the investigation 
and failure of the police officials – Writ petition – The High 
Court directed all the remarks made against the IO & SHO 
expunged and recorded findings/remarks against the appellant 
– Propriety:
Held: The High Court has jurisdiction u/Art. 227 of the Constitution 
of India and Section 482 of the CrPC to correct the errors committed 
by the courts which are judicially subordinate to it – The superior 
courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous orders and 
expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations – While doing so, 
the superior courts can legitimately criticise the orders passed by 
the Trial Courts or the Appellate Courts by giving reasons – There 
can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by using 
strong language – However, such observations must always be 
in the context of errors in the impugned orders – While doing so, 
the courts have
to show restraint, and adverse comments on the 
personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer should be 
avoided – There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders 
and criticising a Judicial Officer – The first part is permissible – The 
second category of criticism should best be avoided – It is settled 
* Author
862
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that the High Court Judges, after noticing improper conduct on the 
part of the Judicial Officer, can always invite the attention of the 
Chief Justice on the administrative side to such conduct – 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 – Thus, the 
High Court could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to 
advise individual Judicial Officer – Therefore, the prayer made by 
the appellant for expunging remarks will have to be acceded to. 
[Paras 15, 17]
Case Law Cited
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim [1964] 2 SCR 363 : 1963 SCC OnLine 
SC 22; ‘K’, A Judicial Officer [2001] 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 
54 – relied on.
V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and 
Ors. [2009] 11 SCR 907 : (2008) 17 SCC 538; K.P. Tiwari v. State 
of M.P. [1993] Supp. 3 SCR 497 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 540; Ajit 
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3945; Dayal 
Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal [2012] 10 SCR 157 : (2012) 
8 SCC 263; All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v. Union of 
India and Ors. [2002] 2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247 – referred to.
List of Acts
Delhi High Court Rules and Orders
List of Keywords
Judicial Service; Judicial Officer; Erroneous orders; Expunge
uncalled and unwarranted observations; Adverse comments on the 
personal conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer; Administrative 
side.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No(s). 
388- 389 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 and 09.05.2023 
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 962 of 2023 
and CRLMA No. 12378 of 2023 respectively
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
863
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Sagar Suri, Kabir Sagar Ghosh, Vivek Narayan Sharma, 
Ms. Shruti Priya Mishra, Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Brijender Chahar, S.V Raju, A.S.Gs., Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, M/s. Aura & 
Co., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Ameyavikrama 
Thanvi, Amit Sharma B, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Neeraj Shekhar, 
Mrs. Kshama Sharam, Rajesh Maurya, Aditya Goyal, Advs. for 
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.	
The appellant is serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge 
in Delhi judicial service. The appellant has preferred these appeals 
for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in 
paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 
2023 by the Delhi High Court. The appellant moved an application 
before the Delhi High Court for expunging the remarks in paragraphs 
11 to 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023. By an 
order dated 9th May 2023, the said application was rejected by the 
High Court. This is the second impugned order. 
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.	
The appellant was dealing with an application for anticipatory bail filed 
by one Vikas Gulati @ Vicky in FIR No. 221/2022 registered for the 
offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 read with Section 
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) with Defence Colony 
Police Station. The appellant had earlier
rejected another application 
for anticipatory bail made by co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala on 
2nd January 2023. The anticipatory bail application of Vikas Gulati 
came up before the appellant on 21st January 2023. By a detailed 
order, the appellant rejected the said application. While rejecting the 
application, the appellant made certain adverse observations about 
the conduct of the police officers and issued certain directions. The 
following are the observations made by the appellant in the order:
864
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“Perusal of police file shows that after case diary of 
23.12.2022, the next day on which case diary was written 
by IO is of date 04.01.2023. IO has not written any case 
diary for date 02.01.2023 on which date, anticipatory bail 
applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala were 
dismissed. IO has written in case diary of 04.01.2023 that 
notices U/sec 41 A Cr. P. C were issued to co-accused 
Sunita and Raj Bala and all this was apprised to SHO PS 
Defence Colony. 
It is surprising that despite opposing anticipatory bail 
applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala and 
submitting before court that their custody is required for 
recovery of stolen sarees, IO instead of arresting them 
made them join investigation after serving notices U/sec 
41A Cr. P. C. There was no need to oppose anticipatory 
bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala in case, 
their custody was not required by IO. When police has 
opposed anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita 
and Raj Bala before court but made them join investigation 
by serving notice U/sec 41A Cr. P.C, it appears that there 
is something fishy on part of police.
……………………..................……………………………..”
(emphasis added)
After making the above observations, the appellant dealt with the 
merits of the bail application and concluded that the accused before 
him was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the 
appellant observed thus:
“From conduct of IO, it appears that he is not carrying 
out investigation in a proper manner and there is 
something more written on wall than visible.”
(emphasis added)
3.	
The appellant observed that despite so many orders passed by the 
court, the updated status of cases pending against the accused 
had not been mentioned in the previous involvement report of the 
accused filed, along with a reply to the anticipatory bail application. 
Thereafter, the appellant issued the following directions:
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
865
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
“Issue show cause notice to SHO PS Defence Colony 
and IO HC Raj Kumar U/sec 177 IPC for furnishing false 
information to this court through DCP, South for 31.01.2023.
Let copy of order be sent to DCP, South to inquire 
about role of IO as well as SHO PS Defence Colony in 
investigation of present case in view of observations 
of this court as have come in this order with direction 
to file Action Taken Report against the erring officials 
and file report in this regard before this court on 
31.01.2023.
Let explanation be sought from CP, Delhi as to why SCRB 
record is not being updated till date despite direction 
of this court way back about one and half years ago in 
FIR No. 16/2018, PS Govind Puri for 31.01.2023 with 
direction to fix responsibility of concerned official for 
failure to comply with the same. It is notable that once, 
punishment of censure has already been awarded to 
defaulting SHOs and advisory has been issued to all 
defaulting ACPs as per explanation earlier called from 
CP, Delhi and reports furnished by DCP, South and DCP, 
South-East on behalf of CP, Delhi in another matter but 
still, there is no improvement which practically shows 
that even higher hierarchy in police has failed to instill 
discipline in Delhi Police. 
Let copy of order be sent to CP, Delhi for information and 
compliance. 
Let copy of order be sent to SHO PS Defence Colony for 
reference and compliance.”
(emphasis
added)
4.	
Further order was passed by the appellant on 31st January 2023 in 
which it was observed that though the appellant had asked DCP 
(Deputy Commissioner of Police), South to hold an inquiry about 
the role of Investigating Officer (IO) as well as Station House Officer 
(SHO) of Defence Colony Police Station, only show cause notices of 
censure have been issued to the officers. The appellant observed that
866
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the report of DCP, South, was silent about the observation made in 
the earlier order that there was something fishy in the investigation. 
Therefore, the appellant observed that the order dated 21st January 
2023 has not been taken into consideration by the DCP, South. 
Hence, the appellant directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, 
to conduct a vigilance inquiry against the IO and SHO of Defence 
Colony Police Station. However, the appellant dropped the show 
cause notice issued to IO and SHO under the order dated 21st 
January 2023 for showing cause why they should not be prosecuted 
under Section 177 of the IPC. 
5.	
The IO and SHO filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) for expunging the 
remarks made against them in the orders dated 21st January 2023 and 
31st January 2023. A prayer was also made to set aside the direction 
issued to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to hold vigilance inquiry 
against them. By the first impugned order, the learned Single Judge 
of the High Court directed that all remarks made against the IO and 
SHO in the orders dated 21st January 2023 and 31st January 2023 
shall stand expunged. Even the directions issued by the appellant 
against the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner 
of Police were ordered to be deleted. 
6.	
As seen from the grounds taken in the appeals and written 
submissions dated 30th September
2024, the appellant’s grievance 
is about remarks recorded against him in paragraphs 13 and 14 of 
the first impugned order. The said remarks are as follows:
“13. Not only are such remarks unnecessary but also 
could have serious implications on the careers of public 
servants, particularly for what seems in the facts and 
circumstances as perfunctory issues which have no huge 
negative impact on the actual administration of the criminal 
justice process. As discussed above, the Ld. ASJ ought 
not to have embarked on an inexorable quest when 
his original concern had been suitably addressed. The 
remarks and the phraseology used by the Ld. ASJ is 
summary in nature, penal in its scope, stigmatizing in 
its tone and tenor and as already motioned, beyond 
the ken of expected judicial conduct. In these facts 
and circumstances it is directed that all remarks against
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
867
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
the petitioners in orders dated 21st January, 2023 and 
31st January, 2023 passed by Ld., Additional Sessions 
judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Bail Appl. 
No. 202/2023 shall be expunged and all directions for 
conducting enquiries and explanations by the DCP or 
the Commissioner of Police shall be recalled and stand 
deleted from the said orders. 
14…….............................……………………………………
……… It is expected therefore that the Ld. ASJ would be 
circumspect and exercise care and caution in future 
before embarking on these judicial misadventures.”
7.	
We must note here that the appellant applied for impleading the 
High Court of Delhi as a party through its Registrar General. The 
said application was allowed. A short reply was filed on behalf of the 
High Court by O.S.D. (Rules and Litigation) in which reliance was 
placed on Rule 6, Part H, Chapter I of Volume III of the High Court 
Rules and Orders. Rule 6 provided that it is undesirable for courts 
to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such 
remarks are strictly relevant to the case. It also provided that there 
should not be any over-alacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to 
believe anything and everything against the police. Prima facie, we 
were of the view that this Rule interferes with the discretion available 
to the judges. It is unnecessary for us now to deal with Rule 6 as a 
document has been placed on
record by the learned ASG appearing 
for the High Court that the Rule Committee of the High Court has 
approved the deletion of Rule 6 and the approval of the Hon’ble 
Governor has been sought for the deletion. 
SUBMISSIONS
8.	
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our 
attention to factual aspects of the case dealt with by the appellant, 
which warranted the appellant to pass strict orders against the 
Police Officers and issue directions referred to above. He pointed 
out that the appellant did not take forward the show cause notice 
issued to the IO and SHO, calling upon them to show cause as to 
why criminal law should not be set in motion against them for the 
offence punishable under Section 177 of the IPC. He pointed out 
that all that the appellant did was point out flaws in the investigation 
and the failure to update SCRB data. He submitted that there
868
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was non-compliance with the standard operating procedure dated 
29th January 2021 issued by the Office of Commissioner of Police 
of Delhi, through Deputy Commissioner of Police, on this behalf. He 
submitted that nothing is wrong if the appellant criticises the IO for 
not properly maintaining the case diary. 
9.	
Coming to the remarks made in the first impugned order, he relied 
upon decisions of this Court in the case of V.K. Jain v. High Court 
of Delhi through Registrar General and Ors.,1 K.P. Tiwari v. State 
of M.P.2 and in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer.3 He submits that the 
remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first 
impugned order deserve to be expunged. He submitted that in the 
first impugned order, the High Court relied upon its own decision 
in the case of Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),4 which in turn 
relies upon Rule 6, which has been now deleted.
10.	 He submitted that due to the adverse remarks against the appellant 
in the first impugned order, the unblemished career of the appellant 
as a Judicial Officer is likely to be adversely affected. He also invited 
our attention to observations made by this Court in the case of Dayal 
Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal.5 
11.	 The learned counsel representing the State has assisted the Court 
by pointing out the law on this aspect. 
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
12.	 There are two parts of the first impugned order. The first part
concerns 
expunging the observations and findings recorded by the appellant 
against the IO and SHO and setting aside the direction issued by 
the appellant to the Commissioner of Police for holding an inquiry. 
The second part concerns the adverse observations/remarks made 
in paragraphs 13 and 14. As far as the first part is concerned, the 
appellant cannot make any grievance. The appellant’s grievance 
must be confined only to the second part. 
1	
[2009] 11 SCR 907 : (2008) 17 SCC 538 
2	
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 497 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 540
3	
[2001] 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 54
4	
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3945 
5	
[2012] 10 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 263
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
869
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
13.	 In the case of State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim,6 in paragraph 11 this 
Court held thus:
“11. The last question is, is the present case a case of 
an exceptional nature in which the learned Judge should 
have exercised his inherent jurisdiction under Section 
561-A CrPC in respect of the observations complained 
of by the State Government? If there is one principle of 
cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is 
this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and 
Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed 
to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without 
undue interference by any body, even by this Court. At the 
same time it is equally necessary that in expressing 
their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided 
by considerations of justice, fair-play and restraint. 
It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations 
defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It 
has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making 
disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose 
conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in 
cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) 
whether the party whose conduct is in question is before 
the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending 
himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing 
on that conduct, justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it 
is necessary for the
decision of the case, as an integral 
part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also 
been recognised that judicial pronouncements must 
be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart 
from sobriety, moderation and reserve.”
(emphasis added)
These observations must be borne in mind by every Judge.
14.	 In the case of in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer,3 in paragraphs 7 and 
8, this court observed thus:
6	
[1964] 2 SCR 363 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 22
870
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“7. A Judge entrusted with the task of administering 
justice should be bold and feel fearless while acting 
judicially and giving expression to his views and 
constructing his judgment or order. It should be 
no deterrent to formation and expression of an 
honest opinion and acting thereon so long as it is 
within four-corners of law that any action taken by 
a subordinate judicial officer is open to scrutiny in 
judicial review before a superior forum with which its 
opinion may not meet approval and the superior court 
may upset his action or opinion. The availability of 
such fearlessness is essential for the maintenance of 
judicial independence. However, sobriety, cool, calm 
and poise should be reflected in every action and 
expression of a Judge.
8. The primary purpose of pronouncing a verdict is to 
dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties 
before it. A Judge is not expected to drift away from 
pronouncing upon the controversy, to sitting in judgment 
over the conduct of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities 
whose decisions or orders are put in issue before him, and 
indulge in criticising and commenting thereon unless the 
conduct of an authority or subordinate functionary or anyone 
else than the parties comes of necessity under review 
and expression of opinion thereon going to the extent of 
commenting or criticising becomes necessary as a part of 
reasoning requisite for arriving at a
conclusion necessary for 
deciding the main controversy or it becomes necessary to 
have animadverted thereon for the purpose of arriving at a 
decision on an issue involved in the litigation. This applies 
with added force when the superior court is hearing an 
appeal or revision against an order of a subordinate judicial 
officer and feels inclined to animadvert on him. The wisdom 
of a Superior Judge itching for making observations on a 
Subordinate Judge before ventilating into expression must 
pause for a moment and read the counsel of Cardozo—
“Write an opinion, and read it a few years later when 
it is dissected in the briefs of counsel. You will learn 
for the first time the limitations of the power of speech, 
or, if not those of speech in general, at all events your 
own. All sorts of gaps and obstacles and impediments
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
871
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
will obtrude themselves before your gaze, as pitilessly 
manifest as the hazards on a golf course. Sometimes 
you will know that the fault is truly yours, in which 
event you can only smite your breast, and pray for 
deliverance thereafter.”
In paragraph 15, this Court specifically dealt with the legality of 
observations made by the High Court against a Judicial Officer who 
was a serving member of the judiciary. Paragraphs 15 to 17 are 
material, which read thus:
15. In the case at hand we are concerned with the 
observations made by the High Court against a judicial 
officer who is a serving member of subordinate judiciary. 
Under the constitutional scheme control over the district 
courts and courts subordinate thereto has been vested in 
the High Courts. The control so vested is administrative, 
judicial and disciplinary. The role of High Court is also of 
a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate 
to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in 
cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the 
power should be so wielded as to have propensity 
to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if 
committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the 
error but not its repetition”. The power to control is not to be 
exercised solely by wielding a teacher’s cane; the members 
of subordinate judiciary look up to the High Court for the 
power to control to be exercised with
parent-like care and 
affection. The exercise of statutory jurisdiction, appellate 
or revisional and the exercise of constitutional power to 
control and supervise the functioning of the district courts 
and courts subordinate thereto empowers the High Court 
to formulate an opinion and place it on record not only on 
the judicial working but also on the conduct of the judicial 
officers. The existence of power in higher echelons 
of judiciary to make observations even extending to 
criticism incorporated in judicial orders cannot be 
denied, however, the High Courts have to remember 
that criticisms and observations touching a subordinate 
judicial officer incorporated in judicial pronouncements 
have their own mischievous infirmities. Firstly, the 
judicial officer is condemned unheard which is
872
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
violative of principles of natural justice. A member of 
subordinate judiciary himself dispensing justice should 
not be denied this minimal natural justice so as to 
shield against being condemned unheard. Secondly, 
the harm caused by such criticism or observation may 
be incapable of being undone. Such criticism of the 
judicial officer contained in a judgment, reportable or 
not, is a pronouncement in open and therefore becomes 
public. The same Judge who found himself persuaded, 
sitting on judicial side, to make observations guided 
by the facts of a single case against a Subordinate 
Judge may, sitting on administrative side and apprised 
of overall meritorious performance of the Subordinate 
Judge, may irretrievably regret his having made 
those observations on judicial side, the harming 
effect whereof even he himself cannot remove on 
administrative side. Thirdly, human nature being what 
it is, such criticism of a judicial officer contained in the 
judgment of a higher court gives the litigating party a 
sense of victory not only over his opponent but also 
over the Judge who had decided the case against 
him. This is subversive of judicial authority of the 
deciding Judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the 
observations by a judicial officer by filing an appeal or 
petition of his own reduces him to the status of a litigant 
arrayed as a party before the High Court or Supreme 
Court — a situation not very happy
from the point of 
view of the functioning of the judicial system. May be 
for the purpose of pleading his cause he has to take 
the assistance of a legal practitioner and such legal 
practitioner may be one practising before him. Look at 
the embarrassment involved. And last but not the least,  
the possibility of a single or casual aberration of an 
otherwise honest, upright and righteous Judge being 
caught unawares in the net of adverse observations 
cannot be ruled out. Such an incident would have a 
seriously demoralising effect not only on him but also 
on his colleagues. If all this is avoidable why should 
it not be avoided?
16. We must not be understood as meaning that any 
conduct of a subordinate judicial officer unbecoming
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
873
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
of him and demanding a rebuff should be simply 
overlooked. But there is an alternate safer and advisable 
course available to choose. The conduct of a judicial 
officer, unworthy of him, having come to the notice 
of a Judge of the High Court hearing a matter on 
the judicial side, the lis may be disposed of by 
pronouncing upon the merits thereof as found by 
him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement 
criticism of, or observations on the “conduct” of 
the subordinate judicial officer who had decided the 
case under scrutiny. Simultaneously, but separately,  
in-office proceedings may be drawn up inviting 
attention of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the facts 
describing the conduct of the Subordinate Judge 
concerned by sending a confidential letter or note to 
the Chief Justice. It will thereafter be open to the Chief 
Justice to deal with the subordinate judicial officer 
either at his own level or through the Inspecting 
Judge or by placing the matter before the full court 
for its consideration. The action so taken would all 
be on the administrative side. The Subordinate Judge 
concerned would have an opportunity of clarifying his 
position or putting forth the circumstances under which 
he acted. He would not be condemned unheard and if 
the decision be adverse to him, it being on administrative 
side, he would have some remedy available to him under 
the law. He would not be rendered remediless.
17. The
remarks made in a judicial order of the High 
Court against a member of subordinate judiciary even if 
expunged would not completely restitute and restore the 
harmed Judge from the loss of dignity and honour suffered 
by him. In Judges by David Pannick (Oxford University 
Press Publication, 1987) a wholesome practise finds a 
mention suggesting an appropriate course to be followed 
in such situations:
“Lord Hailsham explained that in a number of cases, 
although I seldom told the complainant that I had done 
so, I showed the complaint to the Judge concerned. I 
thought it good for him both to see what was being said 
about him from the other side of the court, and how
874
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
perhaps a lapse of manners or a momentary impatience 
could undermine confidence in his decision.”
(emphasis added)
15.	 The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy are invested with appellate 
or revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the courts 
that are judicially subordinate to it. The High Court has jurisdiction 
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the 
CrPC to correct the errors committed by the courts which are judicially 
subordinate to it. We must hasten to add that no court can be called 
a “subordinate court”. Here, we refer to “subordinate” courts only in 
the context of appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction. The 
superior courts exercising such powers can set aside erroneous 
orders and expunge uncalled and unwarranted observations. While 
doing so, the superior courts can legitimately criticise the orders 
passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate Courts by giving reasons. 
There can be criticism of the errors committed, in some cases, by 
using strong language. However, such observations must always be 
in the context of errors in the impugned orders. While doing so, the 
courts have to show restraint, and adverse comments on the personal 
conduct and calibre of the Judicial Officer should be avoided. There 
is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a 
Judicial Officer. The first part is permissible. The second category
of 
criticism should best be avoided. The reasons are already explained 
by this Court in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer.3 There are five reasons 
given in paragraph 15 of the decision why judicial officers should not 
be condemned unheard. As observed in the decision, the High Court 
Judges, after noticing improper conduct on the part of the Judicial 
Officer, can always invite the attention of the Chief Justice on the 
administrative side to such conduct. 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. 
16.	 The 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.,7 this 
7	
[2002] 2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
875
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
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 Judges have to work 
under stress. As stated earlier, every Judge, irrespective of his post 
and status, is likely to commit errors. In a given case, after writing 
several sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one 
judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise. As stated earlier, 
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.
17.	 We have already referred to the observations made in paragraphs 13 
and 14 of the first impugned order. In paragraph 13, it is observed 
that the appellant ‘embarked on an inexorable quest’. This ought to 
have been avoided by the High Court. Paragraph 14 contains advice 
to the appellant to be circumspect and to exercise care and caution 
in future. The High
Court could not have used a judgment on the 
judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers. That can only be 
done on the administrative side in an appropriate case. Describing 
the appellant’s approach as a ‘judicial misadventure’ in paragraph 
14 was also improper. Therefore, the prayer made by the appellant 
for expunging remarks in paragraphs 13 and 14, which we have 
quoted in paragraph no.6 above, will have to be acceded to. We 
make it clear that the direction to expunge the remarks made against 
the appellant will not bind the administrative side of the High Court. 
18.	 Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Adverse remarks against the 
appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order, which 
we have quoted in paragraph no.6 above, are hereby expunged. 
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan