PETITIONER: U.P JUDICIAL OFFICERS ASSN. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1994 BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) PANDIAN, S.R. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (4) 687 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.We have heard Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Senior
Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. This writ petition
raises certain serious and important issues as to the
meaning of judicial independence in relation to the judicial
services and the means by which it should be ensured and
protected. Incidental to the requirement of maintaining
such independence of the judiciary, it is of importance that
members of the judicial services should not work under
apprehensions of retaliatory action by the Police and the
Executive whatever form such action might assume.
2.We make an interim order that no crime or criminal case
shall be registered against a judicial officer in respect of
anything allegedly done or purported to be done in the
discharge of his duty or in his capacity as holder of such
judicial office without the prior permission of the Chief
Justice of the High Court concerned. In making this interim
order, we take into account the observations of this Court
in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India’ where, in the context of
Judges of the superior courts, it was observed : (SCC pp.
707-09, paras 59 and 60)
“59. There is, however, apprehension that the
executive being the largest litigant is likely
to misuse the power to prosecute the Judges.
That apprehension in our over-litigious
society seems to be not unjustified or
unfounded. The Act no doubt provides certain
safeguards. Section 6 providing for prior
sanction from the competent authority and
directing that no court shall take cognisance
of the offence under Section 5(1) without such
prior sanction is indeed a protection for
Judges from frivolous and malicious
prosecution. It is a settled law that the
authority entitled to grant sanction must
apply its mind to the facts of the case and
all the evidence collected before forming an
opinion whether to grant sanction or not.
Secondly, the trial is by the court which is
independent of the executive. But these
safeguards may not be adequate. Any complaint
against a Judge and its investigation by the
CBI, if given publicity will have a far-
reaching impact on the Judge and the litigant
public. The need therefore, is a judicious
use of taking action under the Act. Care
should be taken that honest and fearless
judges are not harassed. They should be
protected.
60…. We therefore, direct that no
criminal case shall be registered under
Section 154 CrPC against a Judge of the High
Court, Chief Justice of High Court or Judge of
the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of
1 (1991) 3 SCC 655
689
India is consulted in the matter. Due regard
must be given by the Government to the opinion
expressed by the Chief Justice. If the Chief
Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit
case for proceeding under the Act, the case
shall not be registered.”
3.In Delhi Judicial Service Association v.
State of Gujarat2 this Court issued the
following guidelines : (SCC pp. 411-12)
“(A) A Judicial Officer should be arrested for
any offence under intimation to District Judge
or the High Court as the case may be.
(B) In case of necessity for immediate arrest
of a Judicial Officer only a technical or
formal arrest may be effected.
(C)The fact of such arrest should be
immediately communicated to the District and
Sessions Judge of the concerned District and
the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(D)The Judicial Officer so arrested shall
not be taken to a police station, without the
prior order or directions of the District and
Sessions Judge of the concerned district, if
available.
(E)Immediate facilities shall be provided
to the Judicial Officer for communication with
his family members, legal advisers and
Judicial Officers, including the District and
Sessions Judge.
(F)No statement of a Judicial Officer who is
under arrest be recorded nor any panchnama be
drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted
except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of
the Judicial Officer concerned or another
Judicial Officer of equal or higher rank, if
available.
(G) Ordinarily there should be no handcuffing
of a Judicial Officer.
The above guidelines are not exhaustive but
these are minimum safeguards which must be
observed in case of arrest of a Judicial
Officer. These guidelines should be
implemented by the State Government as well as
by the High Courts.”
The aforesaid guidelines were in regard to all offences
generally; but when any criminal conduct is attributed to a
Judicial Officer in discharge of his duties or in purported
exercise or discharge of his duties, we direct that, in
addition, no crime for investigation should be registered
pursuant to any FIR without the permission of the Chief
Justice of the High Court concerned.
4. List this matter before the Constitution Bench at the
next sitting.
Court Masters
2 (1991) 4 SCC 406
693