The Delhi High Court, in its decision, refused to retract a judgment and remove certain sections that contained criticisms of a judicial officer. The court's rationale was that if such requests were made frequently, it would become increasingly difficult for higher courts to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts that have been brought into question before them.

A Single Judge Bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that it was improper to include the name of the judicial officer in the circular/covering letter meant for circulation among all Delhi judicial officers. The Judge emphasized that the judgment in this particular case also refrained from mentioning the name of the concerned judicial officer, as it was essential to focus on the judicial soundness of the order under scrutiny, rather than the individual competence of the judicial officer involved.

The Bench underscored the significance of the hierarchical structure of judicial decision-making, highlighting that when challenging orders, the usual focus is on the accuracy and appropriateness of the order, rather than scrutinizing the judge responsible for its issuance. In emphasizing this point, the Bench cautioned that if such challenges were to occur frequently, it could pose a challenge for higher courts when it comes to the review and reversal of decisions made by lower courts.

Based on the brief facts provided, applications were filed to recall a common judgment dated November 22, 2022. The primary request in these applications was to remove or erase the comments made against the applicant in the court's judgment. The applicant's counsel argued that the judgment had been distributed to all Delhi judicial officers as per the court's instructions, and it included the applicant's name. They asserted that the statements in paragraphs 30 to 38 of the judgment constituted criticisms against the applicant, who was a judicial officer, and therefore, they should be removed from the judgment.

After reviewing the submissions, the Bench made it clear that its assessment was rooted in the content of the disputed order and did not constitute a judgment regarding the applicant's judicial competence.

Nonetheless, the Bench acknowledged the concern raised by the applicant's counsel and noted that, despite the judgment's intended circulation among all judicial officers in Delhi, the circular from the Registry mistakenly included the name of the applicant.

The Bench provided clarification that in the judgment dated November 22, 2022, the court's directive was solely to circulate the judgment among all judicial officers, and there was no specific order to communicate the judgment to the individual judge. However, the Bench stressed that even if it were intended to be sent to the concerned judge, the name of the judicial officer should not have been included in the circular or covering letter intended for distribution among all judicial officers in Delhi.

The Bench recognized the unease arising from such circumstances and emphasized that this discomfort should not be downplayed. Consequently, the Bench issued a directive specifying that any order it issued would not contain the name of the relevant judicial officer in the covering letter or circular sent by the Registry to the District Courts. Instead, it would reference the court number where judges preside, underscoring the distinction that courts preside over cases, not over individual judges.

As a result, the application seeking the recall of the judgment and the removal of paragraphs was rejected. Nevertheless, the High Court expressed a hopeful sentiment that this decision would provide some relief to the judicial officer in question.

Case: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 2236/2022.