2012 (5) TMI 605 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether due to delay and other ancillary factors there was no justification to exercise the power under Section 156 (3) of the Code?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Use of intemperate language by a superior court judge.
2. Impact of such language on the reputation and career of a subordinate judicial officer.
3. Judicial decorum and propriety in passing remarks against subordinate judiciary.
4. Expunging of unwarranted remarks and directions by superior courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Use of Intemperate Language by a Superior Court Judge:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the language used by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, who had made severe remarks against the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). The High Court had described the CJM's conduct as "deplorable and wholly malafide and illegal," labeling the order as "vexatiously illegal" and accusing the CJM of a "blatant error of law" and "unpardonable injustice." The Supreme Court emphasized that such intemperate language was unwarranted and not in consonance with judicial decorum and propriety.

2. Impact of Such Language on the Reputation and Career of a Subordinate Judicial Officer:
The Supreme Court recognized that the remarks and directions by the High Court could indubitably affect the self-esteem and career of the judicial officer. It was noted that a judicial officer enjoys a status in the eyes of the public, and his reputation stabilizes the inherent faith of a litigant in the judicial system. The Court stressed that unwarranted comments could create a dent in the credibility of the judicial officer and the institution as a whole.

3. Judicial Decorum and Propriety in Passing Remarks Against Subordinate Judiciary:
The judgment highlighted several precedents emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and decorum. It referred to cases like Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa, Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S. N. Sarma and Anr., and K. P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which underscored the importance of using temperate language and maintaining judicial poise and balance. The Supreme Court reiterated that criticisms and observations should be judicial in nature, moderate, and reserved, ensuring that the dignity of the judicial officer is maintained.

4. Expunging of Unwarranted Remarks and Directions by Superior Courts:
The Supreme Court unhesitatingly expunged the remarks and directions made by the High Court against the CJM. It was noted that the CJM had dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on his perception of delay and other factors. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's different perception did not warrant such severe observations and directions. The Court ordered that if the remarks had been entered into the annual confidential roll of the judicial officer, they should be expunged, and a copy of the order should be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad to be placed on the personal file of the concerned judicial officer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of judicial restraint and the need to avoid intemperate language that could harm the reputation and career of subordinate judicial officers. The Court expunged the unwarranted remarks and directions made by the High Court, reinforcing the principles of judicial decorum and propriety.