Judges Must Exercise Control And Caution While Passing Strictures Against Investigating Authorities: Delhi HC
Judges Must Exercise Control and Caution While Passing Strictures Against Investigating Authorities: Delhi High Court
Context
In criminal cases, Judges sometimes pass strictures or adverse comments against police or investigating agencies for lapses or misconduct during investigation.
Such remarks may relate to delays, bias, irregularities, or procedural violations.
While judicial oversight is essential to ensure fair investigations, Courts must exercise restraint and caution in making such comments.
Why Caution and Control Are Necessary?
Maintaining Institutional Respect:
Investigating agencies play a critical role in the criminal justice system. Unfounded or harsh criticisms can demoralize and undermine their functioning.
Avoiding Prejudice:
Adverse remarks by courts, if unjustified, may prejudice ongoing investigations or trials.
Balance Between Accountability and Fairness:
Courts should ensure accountability but not impair the dignity of the police or hamper their duties.
Judicial Discipline:
Judges must restrain from making sweeping statements without evidence or due process.
Delhi High Court’s Approach
The Delhi High Court has stressed the importance of judicial restraint and fairness.
Courts should record reasons when passing strictures.
They must avoid scathing or derogatory comments unless absolutely necessary.
The focus should be on corrective measures rather than castigating the investigating officers.
Relevant Case Laws
1. Delhi High Court — Dinesh Yadav v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 14314
The Court held that while courts can comment on investigation lapses, they must do so with caution and judicial propriety.
Strictures must be well-founded and necessary, not casual remarks.
2. Delhi High Court — Ram Avtar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 8445
Observed that courts should exercise judicial discipline while criticizing investigating agencies.
Such comments should be reserved for serious misconduct or mala fide actions.
3. Supreme Court — State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Though primarily about sanction for investigation, the Court emphasized that police actions are subject to judicial review but within reasonable limits.
4. Supreme Court — Prakash Singh & Ors v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1
Highlighted the importance of professional conduct by investigating agencies but also stressed judicial responsibility to be balanced and fair.
5. Delhi High Court — Rajesh Kumar v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1234
Court restrained itself from harsh remarks where lapses were minor and remediable.
Principles for Judges
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Judicial Restraint | Avoid casual or harsh comments without solid basis |
| Fairness | Balance need for accountability with dignity of agencies |
| Record Reasons | Reasons must accompany strictures |
| Focus on Corrective Action | Aim to improve investigation rather than punish |
| Avoid Prejudice | Do not affect ongoing investigations or trials adversely |
Practical Importance
Protects the integrity and morale of police and investigating officers.
Ensures judicial criticism is constructive, not destructive.
Safeguards fair trial rights of the accused and the investigating agencies.
Promotes a healthy working relationship between judiciary and police.
Summary
| Aspect | Position |
|---|---|
| Passing strictures | Requires control, caution, and judicial propriety |
| Basis for strictures | Must be well-founded, serious misconduct only |
| Effect on investigation/trial | Should not prejudice ongoing processes |
| Judicial duty | Maintain balance between accountability and institutional respect |
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court has consistently held that while Judges have the power to pass strictures against investigating authorities to ensure accountability, such powers must be exercised with utmost control, caution, and fairness. Judicial comments should be balanced, reasoned, and aimed at constructive outcomes, preserving the dignity of the investigation process and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments