SONU AGNIHOTRI versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 22-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 
paragr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.