# Sagar Kumar v. District Judge, Moradabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-28
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9146 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sagar-kumar-v-district-judge-moradabad-ors-46055
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 50 -
Independence of Judiciary - Complaint
against Judicial Officer - Responsibility
of Higher Court - The role of the High
Court as a guardian of the subordinate
judgeships, and the duty of the High
Court to protect the judges of the
subordinate
courts
from
false
complaints
-
Judicial
officers
can
discharge
their
judicial
functions
without fear or favour, affection or ill
will only if a conducive environment is
built around them. For this it is essential
to protect judicial officers, from the
menace
of
false
and
frivolous
complaints by disgruntled litigants or
motivated lawyers or interested parties
- Such complaints paired with litigation
against the officers pose a systemic
threat to the independence of the
judiciary - Held, the complaints against
the judicial officer do not disclose any
act of misconduct. Interest of justice
would be served by imposing costs
quantified at Rs. 10,000/ upon the
petitioner. (Para 11, 15, 16 and 17)

Petition dismissed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

47. This petition is accordingly,
dismissed. It is made clear that the
observations made in this judgement are
only for purpose of decision of this
petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and shall not be
taken by the court below as opinion on
the merits of the case.
----------
(2020)08ILR A494
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9146 of 2019

Sagar Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Moradabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lalit Kumar, Sri Pankaj Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Anil Babu,
Sri T.A. Khan, Sri H.K. Yadav

A. Constitution of India - Article 50 -
Independence of Judiciary - Complaint
against Judicial Officer - Responsibility
of Higher Court - The role of the High
Court as a guardian of the subordinate
judgeships, and the duty of the High
Court to protect the judges of the
subordinate
courts
from
false
complaints
-
Judicial
officers
can
discharge
their
judicial
functions
without fear or favour, affection or ill
will only if a conducive environment is
built around them. For this it is essential
to protect judicial officers, from the
menace
of
false
and
frivolous
complaints by disgruntled litigants or
motivated lawyers or interested parties
- Such complaints paired with litigation
against the officers pose a systemic
threat to the independence of the
judiciary - Held, the complaints against
the judicial officer do not disclose any
act of misconduct. Interest of justice
would be served by imposing costs
quantified at Rs. 10,000/ upon the
petitioner. (Para 11, 15, 16 and 17)

Petition dismissed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Krishna Prasad Verma (D) through L.Rs. Vs
St. of Bihar & ors., (2019) 10 SCC 640

2. Ishwar Chand Jain Vs High Court of Punj. &
Hary., (1988) 3 SCC 370
3. P.C. Joshi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2001) 6
SCC 491
4. Ramesh Chander Singh Vs High Court of
Allahabad & anr., (2007) 4 SCC 247

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner has sought the
following relief in this writ petition:

"(i)
Issue
writ
order
or
direction
to
decide
the
complaint/application dated 30.10.2019
pending for consideration before this
Hon'ble High Court and an inquiry at
administrative level may be conducted
and appropriate action as per law may
be taken against Nahid Sultana Civil
Judge (Sr. Div./F.T.C.) Moradabad."

2. On 07.12.2019 the following
order was passed:

"Sri
H.K.
Yadav,
learned
counsel holding brief of Sri Anil Babu,
learned Special Counsel appearing for
High Court and the District Courts may
study the matter and inform the Court as
to whether the respondent no.3 had the
8 All. Sagar Kumar Vs. District Judge, Moradabad & Ors.
495
jurisdiction to decide the execution
application or not.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner may may implead the plaintiffs
as respondents in this petition during the
course of the day.

Place this petition on 9.12.2019
as fresh."

3. Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel
for the High Court submits that the Fast
Track Court had the jurisdiction to decide
the execution application.

4. Heard Sri Pankaj Tripathi,
learned counsel holding brief of Sri Lalit
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3.

5. The complaint dated 30.10.2019
submitted on behalf of the petitioner through
the counsel relates to orders passed by a
judicial officer (respondent no. 3) in her
judicial
capacity.
The
petitioner
has
adequate remedies under the law in case he
is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders. The
complaint does not disclose any act of
misconduct so as to warrant interference by
this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. There is no evidence
in the record to support the charge of any
misconduct. In the event a complaint does
not establish a prima facie act of
misconduct, no departmental enquiry can be
ordered against a judicial officer. In fact a
perusal of the complaint shows that this is a
frivolous petition, by a disgruntled litigant
against a judge who passed adverse orders
against him. The action of the petitioner
constitutes an abuse of the process of court.

6. Judges in a democratic polity
governed by the rule of law, discharge
most
critical
functions
when
they
implement the laws and dispense justice.
Faithful implementation of the law and
impartial administration of justice is
possible only if those charged with
execution of these functions, are free and
fearless,
independent
and
unbiased.
These
virtues
of
fearless
enquiry,
independent
decision
making
and
rendering
impartial
judgments,
can
flourish in the judiciary only if the
environment fosters and supports such
qualities. Absent these values or an
institutional failure to nurture and fortify
these values, could seriously undermine
the justice delivery system and impair
public faith in the judiciary.

7. The qualities of fearless and
independent decision making which are
the hallmarks of a vibrant judiciary were
emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Krishna Prasad Verma (D)
through L.Rs. Vs State of Bihar and
others, reported at 2019 (10) SCC 640:

"1. In a country, which follows
the Rule of Law, independence of the
judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no
Rule of Law, there can be no democracy
unless there is a strong, fearless and
independent judiciary. This independence
and fearlessness is not only expected at
the level of the Superior Courts but also
from the District Judiciary.

2. Most litigants only come in
contact with the District Judiciary. They
cannot afford to come to the High Court
or the Supreme Court. For them the last
word is the word of the Magistrate or at
best the Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is
equally important, if not more important,
that the judiciary at the District level and
at the Taluka level is absolutely honest,
fearless and free from any pressure and
is able to decide cases only on the basis
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the facts on file, uninfluenced by any
pressure from any quarters whatsoever."

8.

The
importance
of
the
subordinate judiciary created under the
Constitution to secure justice to all
citizens and thus achieve the foremost
goal set out in the Preamble needs no
articulation. The subordinate judiciary
is the first trier of facts and evidence,
and is indispensable to implement the
fundamental constitutional vision of the
rule of law and dispensation of justice.
Most litigants have the first interface
with the judicial system at the level of
the district judgeship. To retain faith of
the citizens in the judiciary, it is
imperative that judicial officers are
transparent in their functioning and
accountable for their conduct. A judge
of the subordinate judiciary has to
always remain accountable, but can
never be made vulnerable. In the
former the judicial system will be
fortified, while in the latter it will be
jeopardised. This court notices that
many unscrupulous litigants or lawyers
try to pressurize the judges of the
district judgeships, with threats of
frivolous complaints, and the reality of
endless prosecution of such false
complaints. Such litigants and counsels
seek to create an environment of
blackmail and force the judges to toe
their line. No threat could be more
grave to the independence of the
judiciary,
than
the
judges
being
vulnerable
to
false
complaints
triggering
endless
enquiries.
Such
complaints impair the functioning of
the judge and distract her energies from
the job at hand to issues which have no
relevance. Harassment and humiliation
resulting from false complaints setting
off interminable enquiries, deliver a
fatal blow to the morale of the judge
concerned and does no credit to the
judicial system.

9. Complaints which do not
disclose a prima facie act of misconduct,
cannot cause a departmental enquiry to
be conducted against a judicial officer. A
roving enquiry into vague allegations
against a judicial officer cannot be
countenanced in law. Establishing a
prima facie act of misconduct by a
judicial officer, is the minimum legal
threshold to be reached before a prayer
for holding a departmental enquiry can
be considered.

10. Clearly red lines have to be
drawn.
The
higher
courts
have
a
responsibility in this regard and cannot
shirk it in any manner. The courts have to
quickly distinguish between a genuine
complaint by a bonafide complainant from
a frivolous complaint by a professional
blackmailer. Complaints against judicial
officers are not sport of the complainant,
and the courts cannot be made their play
field. It is equally critical to separate an act
of misconduct completely, from a bonafide
error of judgment in law or fact in the
discharge of judicial functions. This
exercise has to be done at the earliest and
the nuisance has to be nipped in the bud,
before it festers into a sore. Wrong orders
can be rectified by the higher courts, but
false complaints create a long drawn cycle
of harassment of an honest officer, which
cannot be compensated in any manner.
Independent and unbiased judicial decision
making will thrive, once the law firmly sets
its face against false and frivolous
complaints against judicial officers.

11. The role of the High Court as a
guardian of the subordinate judgeships,
8 All. Sagar Kumar Vs. District Judge, Moradabad & Ors.
497
and the duty of the High Court to protect
the judges of the subordinate courts from
false complaints, was thus stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna
Prasad Verma (supra):

"3. Article 235 of the Constitution
of India vests control of the subordinate
courts upon the High Courts. The High
Courts exercise disciplinary powers over the
subordinate courts. In a series of judgments,
this Court has held that the High Courts are
also the protectors and guardians of the
Judges falling within their administrative
control. Time and time again, this Court has
laid down the criteria on which actions
should be taken against judicial officers.
Repeatedly, this Court has cautioned the
High Courts that action should not be taken
against judicial officers only because wrong
orders are passed. To err is human and not
one of us, who has held judicial office, can
claim that we have never passed a wrong
order.

4. No doubt, there has to be zero
tolerance for corruption and if there are
allegations of corruption, misconduct or of
acts unbecoming of a judicial officer, these
must be dealt with strictly. However, if
wrong orders are passed that should not
lead to disciplinary action unless there is
evidence that the wrong orders have been
passed for extraneous reasons and not
because of the reasons on the file."

12. Elucidating the importance of
insulating judicial officers against false
complaints, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ishwar Chand Jain Vs High Court
of Punjab & Haryana reported at 1988
(3) SCC 370 held so:

"14. Under the Constitution the
High Court has control over the
subordinate judiciary. While exercising
that control it is under a constitutional
obligation to guide and protect judicial
officers. An honest strict judicial officer is
likely to have adversaries in the mofussil
courts. If complaints are entertained on
trifling matters relating to judicial orders
which may have been upheld by the High
Court on the judicial side no judicial officer
would feel protected and it would be difficult
for him to discharge his duties in an honest
and independent manner. An independent
and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for
rule of law. If judicial officers are under
constant threat of complaint and enquiry on
trifling
matters
and
if
High
Court
encourages anonymous complaints to hold
the field the subordinate judiciary will not
be able to administer justice in an
independent and honest manner. It is
therefore imperative that the High Court
should also take steps to protect its honest
officers by
ignoring
ill-conceived or
motivated
complaints
made
by
the
unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. Having
regard to facts and circumstances of the
instant case we have no doubt in our mind
that the resolution passed by the Bar
Association against the appellant was
wholly unjustified and the complaints made
by Shri Mehlawat and others were
motivated which did not deserve any credit.
Even the vigilance Judge after holding
enquiry did not record any finding that the
appellant was guilty of any corrupt motive
or that he had not acted judicially. All that
was said against him was that he had acted
improperly in granting adjournments."

13. A similar view was taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi Vs
State of U.P. and others reported at
2001 (6) SCC 491:

"7. In the present case, though
elaborate enquiry has been conducted by the
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
enquiry officer, there is hardly any material
worth the name forthcoming except to
scrutinize each one of the orders made by the
appellant on the judicial side to arrive at a
different conclusion. That there was possibility
on a given set of facts to arrive at a different
conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial
officer for taking one view and that too for
alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The
enquiry officer has not found any other
material, which would reflect on his reputation
or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty
or that he has been actuated by any corrupt
motive. At best, he may say that the view taken
by the appellant is not proper or correct and
not attribute any motive to him which is for
extraneous consideration that he had acted in
that manner. If in every case where an order
of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a
disciplinary action were to be initiated, the
confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be
shaken and the officers will be in constant fear
of writing a judgment so as not to face a
disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers
cannot act independently or fearlessly. Indeed
the words of caution are given in K.K.
Dhawan case [Union of India v. K.K.
Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
325] and A.N. Saxena case [Union of India v.
A.N. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124 : 1992 SCC
(L&S) 861] that merely because the order is
wrong or the action taken could have been
different does not warrant initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against the judicial
officer. In spite of such caution, it is
unfortunate that the High Court has chosen to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
appellant in this case."

14. The importance of protecting
judicial officers from disciplinary action
because of wrong judgments passed by
them lay at the heart of the concerns of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh
Chander Singh Vs High Court of
Allahabad and another, reported at
2007 (4) SCC 247 when it held:

"12. This Court on
several
occasions has disapproved the practice of
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
officers of the subordinate judiciary merely
because the judgments/orders passed by them
are wrong. The appellate and revisional
courts have been established and given
powers to set aside such orders. The higher
courts after hearing the appeal may modify or
set aside erroneous judgments of the lower
courts. While taking disciplinary action based
on judicial orders, the High Court must take
extra care and caution.

17. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar
v. Union of India [Zunjarrao Bhikaji
Nagarkar v.Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC
409 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1299] this Court held
that wrong exercise of jurisdiction by a
quasi-judicial authority or mistake of law or
wrong interpretation of law cannot be the
basis for initiating disciplinary proceeding.
Of course, if the judicial officer conducted in
a manner as would reflect on his reputation
or integrity or good faith or there is a prima
facie material to show recklessness or
misconduct in discharge of his duties or he
had acted in a manner to unduly favour a
party or had passed an order actuated by
corrupt motive, the High Court by virtue of
its power under Article 235 of the
Constitution may exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction.
Nevertheless,
under
such
circumstances it should be kept in mind that
the Judges at all levels have to administer
justice without fear or favour. Fearlessness
and maintenance of judicial independence
are very essential for an efficacious judicial
system. Making adverse comments against
subordinate judicial officers and subjecting
them to severe disciplinary proceedings
would ultimately harm the judicial system at
the
grassroot
level."
8 All. Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499

15. Judicial officers can discharge
their judicial functions without fear or
favour, affection or ill will only if a
conducive environment is built around
them. For this it is essential to protect
judicial officers, from the menace of false
and frivolous complaints by disgruntled
litigants or motivated lawyers or interested
parties. No judicial officer can discharge her
judicial functions in accord with her
obligations to the constitution and the laws,
if she is under constant threat of roving
enquiries on the foot of vague allegations.
There is a noticeable proclivity to make
such vague and frivolous allegations against
judicial officers, by litigants and even
lawyers who are dissatisfied by adverse
verdicts.
Irresponsible
institution
or
unfettered prosecution of false and frivolous
complaints,
impedes
the
effective
functioning of the judicial system, and
undermines the administration of justice.

16. Such complaints paired with
litigation against the officers pose a
systemic threat to the independence of
the judiciary. Judicial officers have to be
secured against false and malafide
complaints by creating a system of
deterrence and penalties. To curb this
evil of false and frivolous complaints
effectively, it is imperative to create a
deterrent regime which may include
imposition of costs on the complainants.
This is apart from other processess
known to law, like drawing contempt
proceedings. In the absence of such
deterrent regime false and frivolous
complaints
would
be
made
with
impunity, the complainants would harbor
a sense of immunity and the judges
would become perpetually vulnerable.

17. In the facts of this case as found
earlier in the preceding part of the
judgment, the complaints against the
judicial officer do not disclose any act of
misconduct. Also as stated earlier, in case
he is aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner
can take recourse to remedies as per law.
Equally the malafide intent of the petitioner
who seems to be a disgruntled litigant
stands established. The complaint has put
the learned judge to untold harassment,
which has interfered in the faithful
discharge of her judicial duties. Her
reputation was sought to be tarnished. She
has been forced to privately engage a
counsel to defend her reputation. In these
facts this court feels that interest of justice
would be served by imposing costs
quantified at Rs. 10,000/- upon the
petitioner. The costs shall be recovered by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad
as arrears of land revenue and deposited
with the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Allahabad. A copy of this
order shall be provided to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

18. The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2020)08ILR A499
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 378 No. 15 of 2020

Hari Shankar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.C. Tripathi, Sri M.S. Ansari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: