Justice Viswanathan said that such exercise of disciplinary powers can have a chilling effect on the independence of the district judiciary and discourage its judges from exercising discretion, especially in matters of bail.
Mere error in judgment or wrong order should not invite disciplinary proceedings against judges, the Supreme Court said Monday as it set aside the 2014 dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer.
“Caution must be exercised by the High Courts in initiating disciplinary proceedings. It should be ensured that only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment without anything more, judicial officer is not put through the ordeal of such proceedings,” the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said.
The decision came on an appeal by Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who was removed as an additional district and sessions judge on charges of corruption and for “double standard” in deciding bail applications under the Excise Act.
A disciplinary inquiry found that while he granted bail in some cases involving seizure of more than 50 bulk litres of liquor, the judicial officer rejected bail applications in many other similar cases, citing the large quantity.
In his concurring judgment, Justice Pardiwala said, “The High Court, which is vested with the supervisory control, must keep in mind that the judicial officer of the district Judiciary works mostly in a charged atmosphere. A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in the grant of bail by itself without anything more cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings.”
The judge added, “It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge of some administrative action being taken that even in deserving cases well within the principles of law, bail is declined. This is one reason why the High Courts are flooded with bail applications. The same is the scenario in the Supreme Court.”
Curated by Dr. Elena Rodriguez
