CAT reprimands division bench of Delhi High Court

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

In a rare unprecedented turn of events, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) reprimanded the Delhi High Court for having entertained a writ petition, remanding the same back to CAT and issuing directions to expedite the hearing.

The writ petition was filed in vacations and placed before a vacation bench of Delhi High Court, as per the then roster decided by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

This writ petition was entertained as CAT was on vacation and no effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, at that time.

Later, when vacations got over, regular bench of the Delhi High Court remanded the matter to CAT for its adjudication with directions to expedite the hearing.

CAT, in its order dated 28.08.2019 took offence at Delhi High Court entertaining the aforesaid writ petition and passing of directions for expedited hearing.

CAT citing a judgment passed by single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court strongly emulated that such directions are unconstitutional and against dignity of the judicial process and judicial functionaries.

In regard to the aforesaid, it is noteworthy that such directions of expedited hearing are routinely passed by all superior courts. In fact, the Supreme Court issues such directions almost every other day to High Courts.

There is no unconstitutionality or disrespect involved in issuance of such directions. On the contrary, issuance of such directions is one of the facet of system of judicial process, hierarchy and discipline.

CAT, however by its order dated 28.08.2018 has in no uncertain terms disparagingly suggested that such directions ought not have been passed by the Delhi High Court.

Such remarks by a sub-ordinate quasi-judicial authority in an order are not only disrespectful to a higher court but also erodes public confidence in judicial process and judicial hierarchy.

The principles of judicial propriety and discipline require that no such disparaging remarks by a forum sub-ordinate be passed against a higher forum. CAT did not have jurisdiction, either judicial or administrative over Delhi High Court to pass such remarks in a judicial order.In fact, Supreme Court in various cases has deprecated the practice of passing such remarks even by superior courts against subordinate courts/judicial officers. In Amar Pal Singh vs State of U.P, the Supreme Court citing series of precedents and deprecating such practice observed that:’A Judge is required to maintain decorum and sanctity which are inherent in judicial discipline and restraint. A judge functioning at any level has dignity in the eyes of public and credibility of the entire system is dependent on use of dignified language and sustained restraint, moderation and sobriety.”It is not to be forgotten that independence of judiciary has an in segregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Unwarranted comments on the judicial officer creates a dent in the said credibility and consequently leads to some kind of erosion and affects the conception of rule of law,’ the apex court added.

Though in a different context, the Supreme Court in A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta expressed the importance of the salutary principle of judicial discipline in the following words: “Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges.”

“This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restrain in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive, and legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail of when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process.”

However, CAT by passing aforesaid remarks against Delhi High Court has thrown all such salutary principles of judicial discipline and restraint to the wind at the cost of public confidence in judicial process and judicial hierarchy.