Delhi High Court Questions Litigant Over Petition for FIR Against Judicial Officer
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday strongly questioned a litigant for filing a petition seeking permission to register an FIR against a judicial officer over allegations of forgery in a court order. A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia reminded the petitioner and his counsel that an FIR against a sitting judge can only be filed after the High Court Chief Justice examines and grants approval on the administrative side, and not through formal court proceedings.
Court Reiterates Supreme Court Mandate on FIR Procedure
The bench underlined that a Supreme Court ruling explicitly mandates that an FIR against a sitting judge requires prior approval from the Chief Justice on the administrative side. The court re-iterated that such permission can neither be sought nor granted in response to a writ petition. This clarification reinforces the established legal protocol designed to protect judicial independence while ensuring accountability.
Distinction Between Complaint and FIR Permission Clarified
The High Court further clarified a critical legal distinction: filing a complaint and seeking permission for an FIR are two separate processes. Even if a complaint is pending, specific approval is necessary to lodge an FIR. For this, a representation can be made directly to the Chief Justice, who decides the matter administratively. This procedural nuance ensures that allegations against judicial officers are handled with due diligence and proper oversight.
Allegations of Forged Order and Social Media Warning
The bench was hearing a plea in which the petitioner's counsel alleged that a district judiciary judge had "concocted" an order from April 2024 to favor the opposing side. Despite repeated objections, the judge reportedly refused to recuse himself from the case. After dismissing the petition as an improper avenue for seeking FIR permission, the High Court objected to the litigant uploading a video of the trial court hearing on YouTube. The court issued a stern warning, advising him not to share court proceedings on social media platforms, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial decorum and privacy.
Opposition from State and Police, Previous Allegations Noted
The counsel representing the state and Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that important facts had been concealed from the court. It was revealed that the order in question had already been challenged in earlier proceedings. Additionally, the lawyer for the High Court administration pointed out that the same litigant had made several similar allegations in the past, which were previously submitted to the vigilance committee for review. This history raised questions about the petitioner's motives and the credibility of the current claims.
Court Orders Further Examination, Next Hearing Scheduled
In light of these developments, the court directed the relevant authorities to file detailed reports and documents pertaining to the case. The bench announced that it will re-examine the matter next week, allowing time for a thorough review of all submissions and evidence. This step ensures that all aspects of the allegations are carefully considered before any further judicial action is taken.
Key Takeaways:
- The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking FIR permission against a judge, citing improper procedure.
- FIRs against sitting judges require administrative approval from the Chief Justice, not court petitions.
- The court warned against sharing court proceedings on social media, highlighting ethical concerns.
- Opposition from state and police revealed hidden facts and previous challenges to the order.
- The litigant has a history of similar allegations, now under scrutiny by the vigilance committee.
- The case will be revisited next week after authorities submit detailed reports.
