In a significant observation addressing systemic challenges in India’s judiciary, the Supreme Court emphasized that judges, being human, are susceptible to making errors, particularly given the immense stress they endure due to overburdened courts.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih lamented the dismal judge-to-population ratio in the country, which remains below 25 judges per million people, far from the 50 per million benchmark set by the apex court over two decades ago.
“Judges are human beings. All human beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err is human. Almost all courts in our country are overburdened,” the Bench stated.
Referring to its 2002 judgment in All India Judges’ Association (3) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the Court noted:
“In the year 2002, this Court passed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased.”
The Court underscored that even superior courts are not immune to errors, stressing the importance of refraining from personal criticism of judges in judgments.
“Judges, irrespective of their post and status, are likely to commit errors due to the pressure of work or otherwise. The higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes.”
The observations came in a verdict where the Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Delhi High Court against a judicial officer who had criticized the Delhi Police in a judicial order. The apex court stressed that such comments could significantly harm a judge’s career and noted the need for superior courts to exercise restraint.
“Whenever action is proposed against a judicial officer on the administrative side, he gets the full opportunity to clarify and explain his position. But if such personal adverse observations are made in a judgment, the Judicial Officer’s career gets adversely affected,” the Court remarked.
Advocate Sagar Suri, appearing for the judicial officer, successfully argued for the expunction of the remarks, highlighting the undue harm caused by the High Court’s observations.
