9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Expunging of remarks made by the High Court Judge against the appellants. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. Justifiability of the remarks based on evidence. 4. Use of temperate language and judicial restraint. Summary: Issue 1: Expunging of Remarks This appeal concerns the expunging of certain remarks made by a learned Judge of the Guwahati High Court against two appellants, Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Dr. P.K. Baruah, attached to Mahendra Mohan Choudhary Hospital (MMCH), while disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by an accused in a murder case. The High Court Judge made several disparaging remarks against the appellants, accusing them of unethical and unprofessional conduct, manipulation, and connivance with the Investigating Officer (IO) to thwart court proceedings. Issue 2: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend themselves before the remarks were made, which is a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice. The Court cited the tests laid down in *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nairn* [1964]2SCR363, which require that the party whose conduct is in question must be before the court or have an opportunity to explain or defend themselves. Issue 3: Justifiability of the Remarks Based on Evidence The Supreme Court found that the remarks were based solely on the report of a medical board that contradicted the appellants' earlier reports. There was no other material on record to justify the remarks. The Court stated that simply because a superior body found the appellants' diagnosis to be incorrect, it does not justify making vituperative remarks without additional evidence of ulterior motives or oblique purposes. Issue 4: Use of Temperate Language and Judicial Restraint The Supreme Court criticized the High Court Judge for using intemperate language and making disparaging remarks. The Court reiterated the need for judicial pronouncements to be sober, moderate, and restrained, quoting from *Mohd. Nairn's case* and other precedents. The Court emphasized that higher judicial forums must exercise greater restraint and use more mellowed reproach to maintain the dignity of the judiciary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the disparaging remarks made against the appellants. The Court also noted that the High Court's direction to proceed against the appellants was not in conformity with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which called for an inquiry into the conduct of Dr. A.C. Bora, Superintendent, MMCH, and the Investigating Officer, not the appellants.
|
