9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Expunction of remarks made against the appellant by the High Court. Analysis: The Supreme Court granted special leave in a case where the respondent did not appear despite being served notice. The appellants sought expunction of remarks made by the High Court against the second appellant, a police officer. The second appellant filed an affidavit expressing regret for any unintentional mistakes and offering an unconditional apology. The Supreme Court considered the affidavit and accepted the apology, noting the second appellant's commitment to avoiding future errors. The Court found the High Court's remarks to be harsh and not proportional to the alleged conduct of the second appellant, which mainly involved faulty notices under the Bombay Police Act. The Supreme Court concluded that expunging the remarks was appropriate to prevent adverse effects on the second appellant's career. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the removal of the remarks from the High Court's order. This case involved a previous instance where the appellants had approached the Supreme Court for expunction of similar remarks, but the Court had directed them to seek relief from the High Court instead. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. The second appellant's affidavit emphasized the unintentional nature of any mistakes and expressed a sincere apology to the High Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged the second appellant's remorse and commitment to avoiding future errors, leading to the decision to expunge the remarks. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the second appellant's repentance, expressed through the affidavit and unconditional apology. The Court considered the impact of the High Court's remarks on the second appellant's career and found them to be disproportionate to the alleged conduct. By accepting the apology and expunging the remarks, the Supreme Court aimed to prevent any lasting negative consequences for the second appellant. The Court highlighted the importance of the second appellant's commitment to avoiding similar mistakes in the future as a significant factor in reaching its decision. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the directions to withdraw the second appellant's powers under the Bombay Police Act were expunged from the High Court's order.
|
