Expunction of remarks: Remarks made against counsel in judgments in which he was representing one of the parties – Judicial propriety – Held: The offending comments recorded in the High Court judgments were apparently made based on the personal perception of the Judge – Before recording the adverse comments, counsel was not given any opportunity to put forth his explanation – Such condemnation of the counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem – The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations was missing in the offending comments – The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court – The offending remarks recalled to avoid any future harm to the counsel’s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar – Remarks accordingly expunged – Natural Justice – Principles of audi alteram partem.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1. While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court. [Para 15][1148-A-C]
2. The offending comments recorded in the High Court judgments, could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes. Moreover, they appear to be based on the personal perception of the Judge. It is also apparent that the Judge did not, before recording the adverse comments, give any opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his explanation. The offending remarks recorded by the judge against the appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court. It is accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant’s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar. Therefore, the extracted remarks are expunged. [Paras 16, 18][1148-C-G]
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 : [1964] SCR 363; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma [1968] 1 SCR 813; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533 : [1990] 2 SCR 110; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa (1995) 4 Suppl SCC 169 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 333; Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar and Another (2005) 6 SCC 767 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 686; A.N. Perera v. D.L.H. Perera and Ors. (1982) SCC SL SC 20 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.