Temples of justice cannot become fertile ground for corruption: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly condemned the “perversity” arising from a purported complicity between a judicial officer and a court employee that led to the eviction of a woman and her three minor children from their home, warning that “temples of justice cannot be allowed to become a fertile ground of corrupt activities”.

Favouring an “iron-hand approach” against acts of impropriety by judges and court staff, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said that “sometimes harsh orders are required so that a right message is sent”, as it refused to interfere with the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in the case.

“We think the directions issued by the high court are befitting of the facts of the case. None of the directions require any interference,” held the bench, making it clear that it was “not going to change even a word” of the high court’s order.

The apex court was hearing a challenge to the January 5 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which ordered restoration of possession of a house within 48 hours to a woman who, along with her three children aged eight, four and three years, was forcibly evicted last year on the basis of an ex-parte order obtained by a district court employee.

During the hearing, the bench came down heavily on the manner in which a civil court order was passed and executed, allegedly using the influence of a court employee working within the same judicial establishment.

Senior advocate HS Phoolka, appearing for Sandeep Gupta , the district court employee who had obtained the eviction order, submitted that the directions passed by the high court were “too harsh”.“It is too harsh an order. I am just a court clerk,” Phoolka argued.

The bench, however, was unsparing in its response. “Such kinds of judicial officer and court staff do not deserve to be allowed in courts even for a day,” remarked the court.

Calling the impugned order “perverse”, the bench said, “It is a perverse order. It crosses all parameters of perversity. All because of your position… your greed that you obtained such an order.”

The court underlined that the case went beyond a routine property dispute and struck at the very credibility of the justice delivery system. “When roots of a conspiracy take place inside a court premises and someone influences an order because the writ runs in that court compound, and a judicial officer, out of misplaced sympathy, misuses his authority and passes a judicial order -- sometimes harsh orders are called for,” the bench observed.

Emphasising the need for deterrence, the CJI-led bench said the judiciary must deal firmly with any conduct that erodes public confidence. “Sometimes harsh orders are required so that a right message is sent,” the court said, adding that acts of improbity by judges and their staff demand an “iron-hand approach”.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the Allahabad High Court had passed its directions “to reinforce the faith of the people in the judicial system”.

“Having regard to the probity of the issue and the facts of the case, the high court was right in issuing the impugned order,” held the bench, dismissing the challenge.

The January 5 judgment of the high court arose from a petition filed by Soni, who alleged that she and her three minor children were illegally dispossessed from their home in Siddharthnagar district last year.

A division bench of justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Arun Kumar found that a local civil court and the district administration “acted in a mala fide manner and in a colourable exercise of power” in evicting the woman.

The high court ordered the district authorities to restore possession of the house to the woman within 48 hours and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on Sandeep Gupta as compensation for “illegal dispossession” and the “mental trauma suffered by the petitioner and her three minor children”. The court further directed that if Gupta failed to pay the amount within a week, the district authority would recover it as arrears of land revenue.

The controversy arose from an ex-parte injunction order passed in February last year by the court of the civil judge (junior division), Siddharthnagar, on a petition filed by Gupta, who is an employee of the district judgeship. Relying on that order, the woman and her children were forcibly evicted from the property on July 18 last year with the help of police and revenue officials.

In her petition, the woman alleged Gupta exploited her alcoholic husband and brother-in-law to execute a sale deed for part of the house in his favour despite no partition among co-sharers, with revenue records listing it jointly in her husband’s, his three brothers’, and mother’s names.

The high court flagged the “tearing hurry” in which the proceedings had moved, noting that it raised “serious doubt about the bona fides of orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the administrative authorities”.

Taking a serious view of the role of the judicial officer, the high court recommended disciplinary action against the trial court judge. It also ordered that the conduct of Gupta be placed before the competent authority for appropriate action in accordance with law.