In a strongly worded order reflecting zero tolerance for judicial overreach and abuse of authority, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a District Judge’s plea challenging a Vigilance Enquiry initiated against him for allegedly misusing his position to persecute his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO). The Apex Court remarked that the judge had “stooped so low” to settle personal scores, calling his conduct a gross dereliction of duty and a serious affront to judicial integrity.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while hearing the petition filed by the District Judge against the Madras High Court’s direction ordering a Vigilance Enquiry through the Registrar (Vigilance).
Supreme Court Shocked By Conduct Of District Judge
During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta made scathing remarks, stating:
“We are surprised why the judge, who stooped so low, has not been suspended. District Judge stooped so low to take vengeance against his own PSO.”
The Court expressed serious concern over the apparent vindictive mindset of the judge and the manner in which he interfered in matters that had no direct judicial relevance, converting private grievances into judicial orders purely to satisfy personal animosity.
Background Of The Case
The allegations against the District Judge stemmed from his belief that his former PSO was behind anonymous complaints made against him. Acting on this suspicion, when the PSO and his family were involved in a minor altercation with another group over a bakery-related dispute, the judge allegedly intervened despite the matter being amicably settled by the parties themselves.
Key allegations included:
- Forcing the police to register FIRs despite prior settlement.
- Issuing suo motu orders for externment of the PSO and his family.
- Ordering the remand of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) who did not comply with his expectations.
- Using his personal vehicle to send the DSP into custody without formal proceedings being recorded.
The Madras High Court found the manner of these actions deeply questionable and accordingly directed a Vigilance Enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance).
High Court Found Prima Facie Evidence Of Misconduct
The High Court observed that the way the District Judge exercised judicial power clearly “probabilised” the allegations of personal vendetta and colourable exercise of authority. It held that the judge appeared to have acted far beyond the bounds of his judicial remit in matters that were essentially personal in nature.
Consequently:
- The suo motu orders were set aside.
- A Vigilance Enquiry was ordered.
- The inquiry report was later placed before the Vigilance Committee of senior High Court judges.
- The matter was also referred to the Transfer Committee, resulting in the judge’s transfer.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Vigilance Enquiry
The Supreme Court categorically refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision, noting that the enquiry process was still ongoing and that no final punitive action had yet been taken against the judge. It rejected the notion that ordering an enquiry itself violated judicial independence.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that the petitioner was not dismissed from service and that the High Court order merely sought accountability through established institutional mechanisms.
Judicial Morale Vs Judicial Accountability
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the enquiry was ordered behind the judge’s back and would have a chilling effect on the morale of the judiciary. He highlighted the judge’s 26 years of experience and the workload pressures faced by judicial officers.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, reiterating that judicial independence cannot be misused as a shield for unethical behaviour or personal revenge. The Court made it clear that accountability enhances, not weakens, the credibility of the judiciary.
Remand Without Proceedings Raises Serious Alarm
One of the most disturbing aspects highlighted by Justice Mehta was the remand of a DSP without proper procedures:
“Is it normal to send a man to custody without recording any proceedings?”
This observation underscored the gravity of the alleged misconduct, showing how judicial authority was reportedly used arbitrarily and without adherence to due process, threatening the foundations of rule of law.
Abuse Of Power And Dereliction Of Duty
The Supreme Court stressed that when a judge begins acting out of vengeance instead of impartiality, it constitutes gross dereliction of duty. The judiciary, as an institution tasked with upholding justice, loses public confidence when its officers engage in personal vendettas under the cloak of authority.
The Court also questioned why a judicial officer would meddle in a matter that had already been amicably resolved between the parties, clearly indicating arbitrariness and malice.
Plea Withdrawn After Court’s Strong Indication
As the bench indicated its inclination to dismiss the petition, Senior Advocate Naidu chose to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, effectively allowing the Vigilance Enquiry and disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered.
Broader Legal Implications
This ruling sends a strong message against the misuse of judicial power and personalisation of justice. The decision reinforces the principle that judges, despite their position, remain accountable to institutional checks and disciplinary mechanisms.
It also establishes that:
- Judicial power must not be exercised for personal motivations.
- Suo motu jurisdiction cannot be misused for vengeance.
- Vigilance mechanisms are essential for maintaining judicial integrity.
Impact On Judicial Governance
The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on judicial governance and accountability. It affirms that disciplinary mechanisms such as vigilance enquiries are not attacks on judicial independence, but safeguards to preserve public trust and institutional purity.
By standing firm against such conduct, the Supreme Court has reinforced the message that justice cannot coexist with personal bias or vendetta.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the District Judge’s challenge against the Vigilance Enquiry marks a powerful assertion of accountability in the judiciary. The Court’s sharp remarks highlight that judicial office is a position of immense responsibility and any deviation driven by personal animosity will not be tolerated.
This case stands as a vital reminder that justice must be impartial, principled, and anchored in constitutional values. When those entrusted with administering justice misuse their power, the system must act decisively to preserve its sanctity.
By allowing the vigilance process to proceed without interference, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judicial power is not a license for personal vengeance, but a solemn duty towards society and the rule of law.
Also Read
