Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)Ajit Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2022
20. It is unquestionable that orders of the Court have to be obeyed and no
one can be permitted to undermine the majesty of the Court. Judicial
directions need to be obeyed by all including Police officials and it is open
to the Court to pass orders pointing out any disobedience, fault in
investigation, etc., however, it is equally settled that it is not the domain of
the Courts to pass directions for initiating disciplinary action, as that is the
prerogative, jurisdiction and domain of the Disciplinary Authority of the
employee concerned. To this extent, there is a clear separation of powers
and jurisdictions and powers are not inter-changeable. Courts have, from
time to time, come to the protection and rescue of officers and public
servants by expunging remarks as well as directions where Courts have
overstepped their jurisdiction, as can be seen from the judgments
aforementioned. This Court in Ajit Kumar (supra) has observed that every
word forming part of a judicial order forms permanent record. Use of
denigrating remarks against anyone, especially Police officials, impeaching
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1896/2022 Page 19 of 23
Signing Date:25.03.2024
20:38:13
their credibility and questioning their sense of dedication towards duty, is
not the best course adopted by a Judicial Officer. Such a criticism may have
a devastating effect on his reputation and professional career. No doubt,
Police Officers are duty bound to discharge their responsibilities with utmost
conviction and dedication, however, the practical difficulties that they may
face in a given situation cannot be glossed over or disregarded by the
Courts. This cannot be construed to mean that the Courts lack the power to
pass an order if there is serious irregularity or omission or commission of
any act directed by the Court and/or a disobedience of its orders. Even
where disciplinary authority decides to initiate action the first principle of
natural justice 'audi alteram partem', cannot be disregarded.
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Delhi Police Act, 1978
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr vs State Of Assam & Anr on 10 September, 1996
In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (supra), the Supreme Court delved into the
issue of the tests to be applied for deciding the question of expunction of
disparaging remarks against authorities and observed that nature of remarks
made by a learned Judge casts a serious aspersion on the person commented
on, affecting his character and reputation and may ultimately impact his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1896/2022 Page 7 of 23
Signing Date:25.03.2024
20:38:13
career. Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
State (Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) vs Pankaj Choudhary on 31 January, 2019
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that it is no longer res
integra that before making any remarks or passing strictures, the Court is
required to give an opportunity to the person against whom the remarks are
passed to defend himself, when the remarks effect his character and
reputation and ultimately his professional career and in this context, relies
on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and
Another v. State of Assam and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 234 and State (NCT
of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Others, (2019) 11 SCC 575.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim on 15 March, 1963
"6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction
of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct
comes in for consideration before a court of law in cases to be decided
by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd.
Naim [AIR 1964 SC 703 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 549 : (1964) 2 SCR 363] .
Those tests are:
Jage Ram, Inspector Of Police & Anr vs Hans Raj Midha on 18 November, 1971
The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by this
Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha
[(1972) 1 SCC 181 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 118 : AIR 1972 SC 1140], R.K.
Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan [(1975) 2 SCC 466 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 654
: AIR 1975 SC 1741] and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [(1986) 2
SCC 569 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 196 : AIR 1986 SC 819]
R. K. Lakshmanan vs A. K. Srinivasan & Anr on 1 August, 1975
The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by this
Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha
[(1972) 1 SCC 181 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 118 : AIR 1972 SC 1140], R.K.
Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan [(1975) 2 SCC 466 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 654
: AIR 1975 SC 1741] and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [(1986) 2
SCC 569 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 196 : AIR 1986 SC 819]