Some lower court judges bring bad name to judiciary: Supreme Court

Additional district judge has “practically superseded us”

Taking a serious view of an order passed by an additional district judge in Delhi ignoring its order, the Supreme Court has recommended disciplinary proceedings against her on the administrative side.

“The order of this court dated October 6, 2010 [when a special leave petition against eviction was dismissed] has been totally flouted. It appears that the alleged sub-tenant in the execution proceedings raised an objection, which was rejected on April 1 against which an appeal was filed before the additional district judge, Archana Sinha, who, by a detailed order dated April 23, has granted stay of the warrant of possession, meaning thereby that she has practically superseded our order and overruled us,” said a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.

“We are constrained to say that a certain section of the subordinate judiciary is bringing the whole judiciary of India into disrepute by passing orders on extraneous considerations. We do not wish to comment on the various allegations which are often made to us about what certain members of the subordinate judiciary are doing, but we do want to say that these kinds of malpractices have to be totally weeded out. Such subordinate judiciary judges are bringing a bad name to the whole institution and must be thrown out of the judiciary.”

Contemnor Archana Sinha had no business to pass the April 23 order and “it is hereby quashed as totally void, the Bench said. “We further direct the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to enquire into the matter and take such disciplinary action against Archana Sinha as it deems fit. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate orders on the administrative side against Archana Sinha.”

Discharged of contempt

The Bench, which had issued a contempt notice against her, however, discharged her of contempt when the court was informed on Tuesday that the possession of the property in dispute had been delivered to the landlord.

“It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litigation between the landlord and the tenant is fought up to the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses in this court, then he starts a second innings through someone claiming to be a co-tenant or sub-tenant or in some other capacity and in the second round of litigation the matter remains pending for years and the landlord cannot get possession despite the order of this court. The time has come that this malpractice must now be stopped effectively.”