The Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday that such orders are bound to have a "everlasting affect" on the reputation of the person against whom such remarks are made, emphasising that judicial strictures must be passed with extreme caution.

"Use of denigrating remarks against anyone, especially against police officials impeaching their credibility and questioning their sense of dedication towards duty, is not the best course adopted by a judicial officer, that too when the same is not required for the adjudication of the case before the Court. Such criticism may have a devastating effect on the professional career of an officer," said the court.

Unwanted judicial restrictions that penalise a person without investigation stigmatise the officer and must be avoided, according to Justice Sharma.

"The judicial power comes with utmost responsibility to exercise adjudicatory liberty to express oneself. Judicial strictures against a police officer to the extent as expressed in the present case are problematic though every disapproval expressed by exercise of adjudicatory liberty of expression may not fall in the realm of lack of judicial restraint," 

The trial court could have forwarded the proceedings, the issue at hand, and the act of disobedience to the concerned Commissioner of Police for action in accordance with their departmental Standing Orders and the rules applicable to them, according to the bench.

The observations were made by the court while hearing a plea filed by a SHO posted at Greater Kailash-I police station seeking the deletion of remarks made against him by the trial court in criminal appeals arising from a case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The SHO also sought the revocation of the trial court's order ordering an investigation into the Commissioner of Police. The trial court on September 06 said "Whether or not an officer like SHO PS GK-I is fit for performing duties as SHO is left on wisdom of CP, Delhi to take a call..."

Case Title: Ajit Kumar V. State (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: W.P. (CRL.) 2236/2022

Link: http://164.100.69.66/jupload/dhc/SKS/judgement/22-11-2022/SKS22112022CRLW22362022_190412.pdf