Supreme Court Of India Judgement: Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat

Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat
Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat

Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat



Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat

 Citation:  AIR 1991 SC 2176

Name of the judges:  K.N. Singh, Kuldip Singh, Kasliwal


N.L. Patel was appointed as the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad in 1988. He later on found that, there was no co-operation on part of police in delivering summons, producing offenders for trail, on the account on which there was delay of the trial procedure. He then wrote a letter to the District Superindent of Police and forwarded the same copy to the Director General of Police. But, no action was taken by both of them.

Mr. S.R. Sharma the Police Inspector  of Nadiad who was annoyed by the behavior of the C.J.M had withdrawn the constables from the C.J.M Court.

N.L. Patel had then filed two complaints against the police inspector of Nadid and other Police Officials for delaying the process of Court. Later on, C.J.M had directed the police to file criminal case against 14 persons who were delaying the process. But the, Police officers had tendered in a un-apolitical way. S, he has directed the police to drop the case. Frustrated by this, Police Inspector had lodged a complaint against C.J.M to the Registrar of High Court through District Superintend of Police.

On one of the days, the police inspector has invited C.J.M to his police station and to check all the documents for himself. The C.J.M had accepted to this and had gone to police station to check them. But, what happened later shook the nation.

C.J.M was forced to drink liquor, he was tied up by the Constables. He was even photographed in the drunk state. The police inspector had, countered the argument saying, he was in that, position before he even got there.


  1. Did the arrest made by the Police Inspector amount to Contempt of Court?
  2. Can the Supreme Court intervene in the decisions of the Subsidiary Court/ can it take cognizance in the cases where there is contempt?

Issues answered:

  1. The arrest made by the Police Inspector was not of some ordinary person/ juristic person, but was of the person who had the responsibility of rendering the protection/judgment in the interests of the state. Under the Article 136 of Indian Constitution, it has been stated that the  arrest of a person who is working for the judiciary would amount to Contempt of Court and would be liable for punishment.
  2. Under the Article 136 of Indian Constitution, the powers granted to the Supreme Court are innumerable. It has the power to intervene in the proceedings of any High Court, where it thinks that there is miscarriage of judgment.



Supreme Court had taken this matter very seriously because of the huge hue and cry in the state. Many lawyers had filed petitions regarding the removal of the police officers to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had taken the cognizance of this case and has ordered the removal of the Police Inspector and the other 5 police officials immediately from their term. The Apex Court had also issued some guidelines while making an arrest of a judicial officer and these are to be followed compulsorily

Police Inspector was awarded with “simple imprisonment” of 6 months and a fine of 2,000 rupees. The other officials were made to pay 1,500 and imprisonment for 15 and 3 months respectively.



Guidelines which are to be followed:

  1. If a judicial officer is to be arrested then the intimation has to be given to the District judge or the High Court.
  2. If there is a need for immediate arrest, then the arrest need to be an formal or technical arrest.
  3. Facts of such arrest should be effectively communicated to session judge or to the District Judge.
  4. The arrested judicial officer shall never be taken to the police station without the prior order from the District/sessions judge.
  5. All the communications should be provided to the judicial officer for his communication with his family members, lawyer and with District/sessions judge.
  6. Neither panchnama, nor the Medical tests should be done except in the presence of the legal adviser.
  7. No handcuffing of the judicial officer shall be done. Except in cases where there is extreme threat to the persons around him by that officer. Only then force can be used against him and can be handcuffed.

Sections that are involved in this case were:

  1. 129 of Indian Constitution
  2. 136 of the Indian Constitution.
  3. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

Cases Referred:

State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid

Om Prakash Gupta v. United Provinces

Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain



 Ashok Kumar Lakkaraju is an avid and sincere learner, researcher & writer and is currently pursuing B.A.LL.B at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here