9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Disparaging remarks made by a High Court Judge against a senior Advocate in a review petition, Allegations of fraud on the Court, Professional conduct of the Advocate General, Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the review petition.
Disparaging Remarks Issue: The case involved derogatory remarks made by a High Court Judge against a senior Advocate in a review petition. The Judge expressed strong disapproval of the remarks, emphasizing the need for Judges to act with sobriety and restraint. The Supreme Court noted that the Judge's remarks were unjustified and unwarranted, cautioning against using strong language while criticizing parties or witnesses. Allegations of Fraud Issue: Allegations of fraud on the Court were raised in a review petition filed by an Advocate unrelated to the original litigation. The petition alleged that the State Government had obtained a judgment through fraud. The High Court dismissed the review petition citing lack of locus standi, maintainability, and delay, without considering the merits of the fraud allegations. Professional Conduct Issue: The Advocate General was criticized by a Judge for allegedly not acting honestly and bona fide in briefing the Chief Minister, leading to a misleading press statement and an embarrassing situation for the Courts. The Judge opined that the Advocate General's actions were not befitting the status of the High Office and lacked courage to face the situation. The Supreme Court found these conclusions to be unjustified and unwarranted, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and respect in decision-making. Jurisdiction Issue: The High Court Judge, while holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the review petition, made comments on the professional conduct of the Advocate without providing him an opportunity to respond. The Supreme Court regretted the unjustified remarks and expunged them from the order, highlighting that such comments were without jurisdiction and lacked justification. The Court allowed the appeal and refrained from awarding costs due to the respondent being an Advocate as well.
|
