A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed, “It’s unfathomable that despite a detailed judgment having been passed, similar orders are continued to being passed by the same judge. In my considered view, this appears to be a complete breach of judicial discipline that a sessions judge continues to pass orders in the teeth of a detailed judgment passed by this court, expunging/deleting adverse remarks made by him against senior police officials.”

Justice Bansal also said that the delay in obtaining FSL reports in a timely manner would not be tantamount to negligence on behalf of the police. The high court observed that FSL, being an independent body, is in “no way under the control or supervision of the Delhi Police” and so it is not in the police’s hands to obtain reports from FSL in an expeditious manner.

“The only remedy in the hands of the Delhi Police officials is to request the FSL to provide reports in an expeditious manner, which has been duly done in this case. Calling of such senior police officials in court would mean that they are not able to tend to their regular work. In order to attend court hearing, they would have to leave their work assignments. Therefore, I fully concur with the findings of the coordinate bench in Ajit Kumar (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Sain (supra), where such practice of summoning senior officials to court has been deprecated,” the high court said.

The high court further observed that the special NDPS judge in the present case did not stop at summoning the senior police officials but proceeded to issue bailable warrants on account of the non-appearance of the DCP on the date before him.

The high court noted that the DCP had duly filed an application for exemption where he had given reasons for his non-appearance, however, the judge “completely disregarded the said application and in a routine manner proceeded to issue bailable warrants which is completely untenable”.

The high court remarked that issuing bailable warrants in a routine manner results in “lowering the image and reputation of high-ranking police officials and would also have a bearing on their service records”.

“It also casts a stigma and therefore, coordinate bench in Ajit Kumar (supra) has rightly emphasized the need to exercise judicial restraint in this regard. In view of the discussion above, the directions of the Judge to direct the personal presence of IO/SHO/ACP/DCP in the present case was completely uncalled for and unwarranted. Further, the directions to issue bailable warrants against the DCP (Crime) was also completely unjustified and without any authority of law,” the high court said.

The high court thereafter set aside the observations by the special NDPS judge in its July 31 order ordering the presence of the investigating officer, the station house officer (SHO), the assistant commissioner of police (ACP) as well as the DCP concerned on the next date of hearing on August 2. The high court also set aside the trial court’s August 8 order wherein bailable warrants were issued against the DCP concerned on the ground that no official exigencies were shown in the request letter.

Justice Bansal also noted that the “same judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in teeth of a detailed judgment” by a coordinate bench of the high court and said that the copy of this judgment be sent to the inspection committee of the high court in respect of the said judge.