2021 (8) TMI 1304 - SC - Indian Laws

Expunction of disparaging remarks against a person whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law - party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself? - evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks - HELD THAT - Having perused the offending comments recorded in the High Court judgments we feel that those could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes. Moreover they appear to be based on the personal perception of the learned Judge. It is also apparent that the learned Judge did not before recording the adverse comments give any opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his explanation. The remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on the professional integrity of the Appellant. Such condemnation of the Counsel without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be missing in the offending comments. The tenor of the remarks recorded against the Appellant will not only demean him amongst his professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career. If the comments remain unexpunged in the court judgments it will be a cross that the Appellant will have to bear all his life. To allow him to suffer thus would be prejudicial and unjust. The offending remarks recorded by the learned judge against the Appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The Appellant whose professional conduct was questioned was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging adverse remarks made against the Appellant by the High Court.
2. Whether the remarks were necessary for the decision of the cases.
3. Whether the Appellant was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
4. Impact of the remarks on the Appellant's professional reputation.
5. Judicial propriety and restraint in making adverse remarks.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunging Adverse Remarks:
The Appellant, a practicing lawyer with 17 years of experience, sought to expunge certain adverse remarks made by a High Court judge in four cases where he represented one of the contesting parties. The Supreme Court noted the specific remarks made in these cases, which included criticisms of the Appellant’s professional conduct and accusations of misleading the Court and wasting judicial time.

2. Necessity of Remarks for Decision:
The Court examined whether the adverse comments were necessary for the adjudication of the matters. It was argued that the remarks were not essential for the Court's verdict and were based on the personal perception of the learned Judge. The Supreme Court found that the comments could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes.

3. Opportunity to Explain or Defend:
The Appellant contended that the remarks were made without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Appellant was not given a chance to explain his conduct or defend himself before the adverse comments were recorded. This lack of opportunity was seen as a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem.

4. Impact on Professional Reputation:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the adverse remarks had cast aspersions on the Appellant's professional integrity and could potentially demean him among his professional colleagues and adversely impact his career. It was emphasized that such condemnation without an opportunity to be heard was prejudicial and unjust.

5. Judicial Propriety and Restraint:
The Court referred to established norms of judicial propriety, emphasizing the need for restraint and moderation in judicial comments. Citing precedents, the Supreme Court reiterated that disparaging remarks should only be made when necessary for deciding the case and should be expressed with utmost restraint. The Court found that the offending remarks lacked the requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the offending remarks recorded by the High Court were unnecessary for the decision of the cases and were made without giving the Appellant an opportunity to defend himself. The remarks were expunged to prevent future harm to the Appellant's reputation and professional career. The appeals were disposed of with an order to expunge the adverse remarks.