1997 (2) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Judicial Restraint and Conduct of Higher Courts
2. Legality of Bail Order under NDPS Act
3. Justifiability of Remarks Against the Sessions Judge
4. Impact on Judicial Institution and Fairness

Summary:

1. Judicial Restraint and Conduct of Higher Courts:
The Supreme Court emphasized that "judicial restraint is a virtue" and higher courts should exercise their powers to correct errors without belching diatribe at lower judiciary. The court highlighted that respect for judiciary is not enhanced by using intemperate language and casting aspersions against lower judiciary.

2. Legality of Bail Order under NDPS Act:
The case involved the cancellation of bail granted to two accused under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Sessions Judge granted bail, which was later canceled by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the Sessions Judge was within his jurisdiction to grant bail, referencing a Division Bench decision in Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act was not attracted for offenses under Section 20(b)(i).

3. Justifiability of Remarks Against the Sessions Judge:
The Supreme Court found the remarks made by the Single Judge of the High Court against the Sessions Judge to be unjustifiable and highly disparaging. The Single Judge had accused the Sessions Judge of granting bail for "extraneous considerations" and suggested that he did not deserve to remain as Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that such remarks were made without any justification and emphasized the need for higher courts to exercise greater judicial restraint.

4. Impact on Judicial Institution and Fairness:
The Supreme Court expressed concern that such remarks could damage the administration of justice and the confidence of people in judicial institutions. It reiterated that judges of higher courts must adopt greater care when employing strong terms against lower judiciary. The court expunged all offending remarks made against the appellant in the order dated 20.5.1996, emphasizing that fairness required the Single Judge to provide reasons when reiterating those remarks.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of by expunging all the offending remarks made against the appellant, thereby upholding the principles of judicial restraint and fairness.