9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging High Court observations casting doubt on credibility and bonafides of human rights activists assisting riot victims. Violation of principles of natural justice and grossly violated rights. Request for deletion of offending portions from the judgment. Analysis: The judgment in question revolved around three appeals challenging observations made by the High Court of Gujarat that questioned the credibility and bonafides of human rights activists assisting riot victims. The appellants claimed to be anti-fundamentalists and public activists aiming to help victims of communal violence and uphold the nation's secular image. They assisted victims in legal matters and were criticized by the High Court for their involvement in the "Best Bakery case." The High Court's caustic remarks, including terms like "super investigators," "anti-social," and "anti-national," were considered unnecessary, contrary to truth, and a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the rule of law, stating that no one should be condemned unheard, and criticized the High Court for making irrelevant observations that did not pertain to the subject matter of the dispute. The Court highlighted the need for judicial decorum, restraint, and the avoidance of unwarranted besmirching of individuals' reputations. It stressed that courts should refrain from making disparaging remarks unless absolutely necessary for deciding a case, and cautioned against using strong language or imputing corrupt motives, especially towards lower judiciary officers. Citing previous judgments, the Supreme Court reiterated the significance of judicial restraint, particularly when dealing with matters before higher courts. It emphasized the need to set right errors without belching diatribe at lower judicial officers and warned against damaging the administration of justice by publicly expressing lack of faith in the judiciary. The Court directed the deletion of the offending portions from the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the decision only pertained to the appellants and did not affect other claims before the High Court or the Supreme Court in related appeals. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of expunging the impugned observations from the High Court's judgment, ensuring that the remarks casting doubt on the appellants' credibility and bonafides were treated as if they never existed.
|
