2001 (2) TMI 1046 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging of detrimental remarks against a judicial officer.
2. Quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the judicial officer.
3. Judicial propriety in making adverse remarks against subordinate judiciary.

Summary:

1. Expunging of Detrimental Remarks Against a Judicial Officer:
The appellant, a judicial officer, sought expunging of remarks made by the High Court in a judgment disposing of a criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court had made adverse observations against the appellant, which were included in her annual confidential records, potentially affecting her career. The Supreme Court emphasized that judges should exercise restraint and sobriety in making adverse remarks against subordinate judiciary, ensuring such remarks are necessary for the decision of the case and the concerned party has an opportunity to defend themselves.

2. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Initiated by the Judicial Officer:
The appellant had initiated contempt proceedings and took cognizance of offences u/s 380, 201, 120B IPC against PWD officials due to their non-responsiveness and obstruction in court functioning. The High Court quashed these proceedings, stating that no prima facie offence was made out and criticized the appellant for exceeding her jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that while the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was not faulted, the remarks against the appellant were unnecessary and prejudicial.

3. Judicial Propriety in Making Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Judiciary:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial restraint and the potential harm caused by adverse remarks against judicial officers. It suggested that if a judge finds the conduct of a subordinate judicial officer unworthy, the matter should be addressed administratively rather than through judicial pronouncements. The Court directed the expunging of specific remarks made by the High Court, which were deemed unnecessary for the decision and prejudicial to the appellant's career.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the expunging of the following portions from the High Court's judgment:
- "[The manner in which the cognizance of the said offences came to be taken clearly suggest that the Magistrate wanted to rope in the petitioners in a criminal case in order to pressurise them to have the dais in court room no.8 and other civil work as noted in the petition carried out as desired by her]"
- "[defying all judicial norms]"
- "[being gross abuse of process of court]"

The Court also ordered that if these observations had percolated into the appellant's annual confidential rolls, they should be expunged as well.