9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of criminal appeal for want of prosecution due to lawyers' strike. 2. Judicial restraint and impartiality of the High Court judge. 3. Impact of personal prejudice on judicial decision-making. Analysis: 1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court for want of prosecution due to lawyers' strike. The appellant argued that the Court should have focused on the absence of appellant's counsel rather than the reasons for the strike. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for dismissing the appeal without proper justification and reinstated the appeal for a hearing on merits. 2. The High Court's observations regarding the lawyers' strike and their demands for the transfer of the Chief Justice were deemed unwarranted by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and impartiality, stating that judges should not let personal prejudices influence their decisions. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for judges to maintain mental equipoise and not allow personal biases to affect their judgment, citing relevant legal principles and precedents. 3. The Supreme Court emphasized that a closed mind and prejudice are detrimental to fair hearing and independent judgment. Judges must adhere to relevant legal rules and maintain impartiality in decision-making. The Court criticized the High Court judge for expressing bias against the advocates and their opinions regarding the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the restoration of the appeal for a fair hearing on merits, emphasizing the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality in the legal process.
|
