Supreme Court on Appropriate Behavior by Judicial Officers

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 4555-4559 of 2021, wherein the Supreme Court discussed about judicial restraint and use of intemperate language in orders by the Courts.

 

FACTS

 

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a practising advocate against whom certain remarks were made by a High Court in a case that was argued by the Appellant. The Hon’ble High Court had observed that the Appellant had deliberately created a wrong example by producing only a part of a document and “placing reliance on same for procuring an interim order by suppressing material fact.” The Hon’ble High Court had also observed that the Appellant made arguments in a manner “as if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole” and “as if it was not an argument for the case but rather for the visitors’ gallery.” Apart from it, some other related remarks were also made.

 

Being aggrieved by such observations of the Hon’ble High Court, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, let us understand the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that “even in cases of justified criticism, the language employed must be of utmost restraint. The use of carping language to disapprove of the conduct   of the Counsel would not be an act of sobriety, moderation or restraint.”

 

Secondly, the Court noted that “the duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is respect by the judiciary.”

 

Thirdly, the Court cited various judicial pronouncements and quoted that “use of intemperate   language or making disparaging remarks against anyone, unless that be the   requirement for deciding the case, is inconsistent with judicial behaviors. Written words in judicial orders are for permanent record which make it even more necessary to   practice self-restraint in exercise of judicial power while making written orders.”

 

Fourthly, the Court explained that though it is important that judicial freedom must exist for free and fair discharge of duties by the judges, but the same also requires that unsolicited remarks that have no bearing on the adjudication of the case must not be made.

 

Fifthly, the Court observed that the remarks made by the High Court seem to be personal in nature and could have been avoided. Further, the Court was of the view that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant to explain its stand. Giving an opportunity of hearing was important since not doing so is a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem as the remarks made have casted aspersions on the professional integrity of the Appellant.

 

Sixthly, the Court was of the view that the remarks so made would have a demeaning effect on the reputation of the Appellant in front of his professional colleagues and may also adversely impact his professional career.  The Court also noted that if such remarks remain unexpunged, then it will be a mark on the career of the Appellant that he shall have to bear all his life which would be prejudicial and unjust.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the Appellant’s reputation and expunged the offending remarks by the High Court against the Appellant.

 

That was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

We have often read that majesty of law is something that must be respected. In the same way, the Courts are the temples of law and justice, and the Advocates and the Hon’ble Judges are its Officers. When something does not have any bearing upon adjudication of any matter, then the Supreme Court rightly observed that comments relating to the same must not be made by any Court. If at all there is something wrong with the conduct of an Advocate, then the Judges are always free to report such conduct to the disciplinary body of the Advocates i.e., the respective Bar Council, but making observations in a Court Order about conduct of an Advocate would have a stigmatic effect upon his career and should be avoided.