9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Justice of the High Court raises a fundamental question about the jurisdiction of a single Judge to issue such a notice in the established facts of the case. It is not individuals but the prestige of the Institution which is at stake in this case. The manner in which 'allegations' have been made against the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Division bench of the High Court which had disposed of the writ petition and some of the former Chief Justices of the Rajasthan High Court, including the present Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, has caused us much anguish. We wish we did not have to deal with a case like this but we shall be singularly failing in our duties to the Institution, if we do not deal with the matter and take it to its logical conclusion. First, some salient facts: Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1996 was filed, as a Public Interest Litigation, on 9.9.1996 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by an Advocate of that court, inter alia seeking directions to provide suitable accomodation to the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and for certain other benefits for the Judges. During the proceedings of the writ petition certain interim orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.S. CHAUHAN Mr. M.C. Bhoot ) Mr. D.R. Bhandari ) for the petitioners Mr. I R. Choudhary ) Mr. L.S. Udawat) for the respondents Mr. R.P. Dave ) Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the relief sought for, in the writ petition, do not survive for consideration now. The writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Since the main petition itself has been dismissed, the right of the intervenor to be heard does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the application filed by him is also rejected. Thus, writ petition No.2949 of 1996 was dismissed as 'infructuous' and,. the proceedings in that writ petition concluded. A Criminal Revision Petition No.357 of 1997 was filed by one Prakash Chand, respondent No.1, herein challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 304 A IPC. This petition, as per the roster, was listed for admission and bail before Shethna, J. on 3.9.1997. It appears that preliminary hearing of the petition did not conclude on that date and the learned Judge directed that the revision petition be listed before him along with other part-heard cases on 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eption was taken to its disposal by the division Bench. Caustic comments, and unjustified allegations in intemperate language were made not only against the Chief Justice for transferring that writ petition from his board to the Division Bench but also against the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench which head the writ petition. While making those observations that Shethna, J. took exception to the manner in which the writ petition was transferred to the Division Bench by the Chief Justice and opined that by doing so, the Chief Justice had prima facie committed criminal contempt of court and concluded: Thus, the act of Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court in withdrawing the part heard writ petition from this Court and getting it disposed of in a most suspicious circumstances and not placing that petition along with other part heard matters before this Court on 5.9.97 and 9.9.97 as per my earlier order dated 3.9.97 and 8.8.97 prima facie constitute a criminal contempt . Therefore, office is directed to issue notice against Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to show cause as to why the contempt procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction to cast 'aspersions' on some of the former Chief Justice of that Court, including the present Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, behind their backs and that too on half- baked facts and insinuate that they had illegally drawn daily allowances at the full rate of 'Rs.250/-' per day, to which they were not entitled and had thereby committed criminal misappropriation of public funds while making comments on the merits of the disposed of writ petition? These are some of the important and fundamental questions which arise in this case? Before proceeding further, it is necessary to first examine the powers of the Chief Justice in the matter of constitution of Benches, providing of roster an din in particular his prerogative to transfer even a part-heard case from the board of a learned Single Judge to a Division bench cor disposal on being satisfied that the case involved constitutional issues, which under the High Court Rules was required to be heard by a Division Bench. Para 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 deals with the distribution of business and administrative control of the High Court. It provides: Distributi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions of the Chief Justice. Therefore in the scheme of things judicial discipline demands that in the event a single Judge or a division bench considers that a particular case requires to be listed before it for valid reasons, it should direct the Registry to obtain appropriate orders from the chief Justice. The puisne Judges are not expected to entertain any request from the advocates of the parties for listing of case which does not strictly fall within the determined roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders. This is essential for smooth functioning of the Court. Though, on the judicial side the Chief Justice is only the 'first amongst the equals', on the administrative side in the matter of constitution of Benches and makes of roster, he alone is vested with the necessary powers. That the power to make roster exclusively vests in the Chief Justice and that a daily cause list is to be prepared under the directions of the Chief Justice as is borne out from Rule 73, which reads thus:- Rule 73, Daily Cause List.- The Registrar shall subject to such directions as the Chief Justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above provisions that the High Court as a whole consisting of the Chief Justice and his companion Judges has got the jurisdiction to entertain any case either on the original side or on the appellate or on the revisional side for decision and that the other Judges can hear only those matters which have been allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. It, therefore, follows that the Judges do not have any general jurisdiction over all the cases which the High Court as whole is limited only to such cases as are allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. (Emphasis supplied) A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Niranjan Singh vs. State, AIR 1974 Rajasthan 171 also examined the ambit and scope of the provisions of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and in particular of Rules 54, 55, 61, 66, 74 etc. with regard to the powers of the Chief Justice in the matter of constitution of Benches and allocation of work to his companion Judges. The Bench opined: It is therefore the responsibility of the Chief Justice to constitute the Division Courts of Benches. The Judges are required to sit alone or in the Division Benches and, in ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the very nature of things. Again, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. vs. The registrar of Chits. 1991 (2) L.W. 80, opined: The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to allocate the judicial business of the High Court including who of the judges should sit alone and who should constitute the Bench of two or more Judges. No litigant shall, upon such constitution of a Bench or allotment of a case to a particular Judge of the Court will have a right to question the jurisdiction of the Judges or the Judge hearing the case. No person can claim as a matter of right that this petition be heard by a single Judge or a Division Bench or a particular single Judge or a particular Division Bench. No Judge or a Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. More recently, in the case of Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587, a Division Bench of this Court has opined: It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute benches of his High Court and to allocate work to such benches, Judicial discipline requires th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cases which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. (b) a Judge may, if he thinks fit, refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone on any question or questions of law arising therein for decision to a Bench two Judges; and Rule 66 of the High Court Rules deals with tied up cases while Rule 74 deals with part-hears cases. These Rules read as follows:- Rules 66 Tied up cases.- (1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench. (2) Where a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of the sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it. Rule 74. Part-heard cases.- A case which remains part-heard at the end of the day shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge or Judges concerned, be placed first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Day's List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Every part-heard case entered in the Day's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective classes or categories of cases presented in a formal way for their decision, according to such determination, is acquired. To put it negatively, the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of and to hear specified categories or classes of cases and to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in respect of them is derived only from the determination made by the Chief Justice in exercise of his constitutional, statutory and inherent powers and from no other source and no cases which is not covered by such determination can be entertained, dealt with or decided by the Judges sitting singly or in Division Courts till such determination remains operative. Till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who sits singly can sit in a Division Bench nor can a Division Bench be split up and one or both of the Judges constituting such Bench sit singly or constitute a Division Bench with another Judge and take up any other kind of judicial business. Even cases which are required to be heard only by a particular single Judge or Division Bench, such as part-heard matters, review cases etc. cannot be heard unless the Judge concerned is sitting singly or the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application of the Chief Standing Counsel, was a perfectly valid and a legally sound order. The Bench speaking through S. Saghir Ahmad, J. (As His Lordship then was) said: Under Rule 6 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court, it can well be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice through an application or even otherwise that there was a case which is required to be heard by a larger Bench on account of an important question of law being involved in the case or because of the conflicting decisions on the point in issue in that case. If the Chief Justice takes cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 6 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court and constitutes a Bench of two or more Judges to decide the case, he cannot be said to have acted in violation of any statutory provisions. The learned Judge then went on to observe: In view of the above, it is clear that the Chief Justice enjoys a special status not only under Constitution but also under Rules of Court, 1952 made in exercise of powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice alone can determine jurisdiction of various Judges of the Court. He alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench. In the instant case, it was the statutory duty of the Chief Justice to assign writ petition No. 2949 of 1996 to a Division Bench of the High Court for hearing since it involved constitutional issues and Rules 55 of the High Court Rules required such a case to be so heard. No exception whatsoever could, therefore, be taken to the order of the Chief Justice made on 9.9.97, referring that writ petition for hearing to a Division Bench. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Chief Justice was statutorily obliged to take cognizance of the application filed by the additional Advocate General of the state and pass appropriate orders. He could not shut his eyes as regards the requirements of Rules 55 (supra) only because a single judge of t High Court was treating the case as part-heard. The correctness of the order of the Chief Justice could only be tested in judicial proceedings in a manner known to law. No single Judge was competent to find fault with it. As earlier noticed, on 11.9.97 a separate board was prepared for Shethna, J. under directions of the Chief Justice in view of the order made by Shethna, J on 8.9.1997 and part heard criminal revision petitions and wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The insinuations made by Shethna, J against the Chief Justice of the High Court for transferring the Writ Petition to the Division bench are not only uncalled for, unwarranted and unjustified but are also subversive of proper judicial discipline. To insinuate, as the learned Judge does, that the writ petition was got 'disposed of' in 'suspicious' circumstances is wholly wrong and devoid of sobriety expected of a judicial officer. The insinuation also amounts to contempt of the Division Bench as it implies that the Judges of the Division Bench were so amenable . The insinuations are aimed at bringing the administration of justice into disrepute and tend to shake public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. The observations, insinuations and aspersions lack courtesy and good faith. Judicial restraint has been thrown to the winds. It is unbecoming of a Judge of the High Court to travel out of the confines of the issue before him (in this case the criminal revision petition) and to fish out material to unjustifiably malign someone more particularly when that someone happens to be the one who is the head of the judicial family in the High Court. We most st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge not for the judicial process. The Judge's Bench is a seat of power. Not only do Judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing oriticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case. (Emphasis supplied) There is one other disquieting and disturbing aspect of the matter and that is that the learned judge has cast aspersions and made insinuations against the Chief Justice and the Judges constituting the Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, for what has been said above, we hold that all comments, observations and aspersions made by Shethna, J. against the Chief Justice and the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench are without any justification or jurisdiction and bear no relevance to the case which was before the learned Judge and the same deserve to be set aside and expunged from the record. That brings us to the next question relating to the propriety of issuance of notice to the Chief Justice of the High Court to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. In substance the contempt that is alleged to have been committed by the Chief Justice of the High Court respondent No.2, is in transferring W.P. No. 2949/96 which has been heard in part by Shethna J. to a Division Bench for its disposal and for not placing that writ petition alongwith other part heard cases before the learned Judges despite his orders to that effect. As already noticed Shethna, J. had twice on 3.9.97 and 8.9.97, directed criminal revision petition No. 354/97 to be listed alongwith other part heard cases before him. The great anxiety to hear other part-heard cases alongwith the criminal revision p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge their duties without fear or favour, though remaining within the bounds f their jurisdiction. Immunity from any civil or criminal action or a charge of contempt of court is essential for maintaining independence of the judiciary and for the strength of the administration of justice. The following passage from Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn. 1993 (Reprint) in this behalf is apposite: An action will not lie against a Judge of a Court of Record for a wrongful commitment in the exercise of his judicial duties, any more than for an erroneous judgment(s). But the Divisional Court refused to strike out as disclosing no cause of action a statement of claim in an action for malicious prosecution brought against certain Judges of the Supreme Court of Trinidad for having (as it was alleged) of their own motion, and (as it was alleged) of their own motion, and without any evidence, caused the plaintiff to be prosecuted and committed to prison for an alleged contempt of the Supreme Court in forwarding to the Governor of the Colony for transmission to the Queen in Council a petition of appeal complaining of the oppressive conduct of the defendant as Judges(t). At the tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them as well as for the judicial orders made by them. The statement of objects and reasons for introducing the Bill in relation to the 1985 Act which reads thus is instructive: Judiciary is one of the main pillars of parliamentary democracy as envisaged by the Constitution. It is essential to provide for all immunities necessary to enable Judges to act fearlessly and impartially in the discharge of their judicial duties. It will be difficult for the Judges to function if their actions in court are made subject to legal proceedings, either civil or criminal. Section 16(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 does not apply to the Judges of the court of record but only to the subordinate judiciary. The issuance of a notice to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against respondent. No.2, the Chief Justice of the High Court, by shethna, J. in the facts and circumstances of this case is thus wholly illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction. Issuance of such a notice is also misconceived since by no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was any interference in the administration of justice by the Chief Justice in exercising his statutory powers t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and nobody else would come to know then in that case they should be; more careful while drawing such D.A. amount. It is nothing but a mis- appropriation of the public fund which is a criminal offence under the Penal Code. Justification or propriety for making these comments apart, the validity of these comments/observations needs to be tested for procedural propriety factual accuracy and visible legal support. So far as the procedural propriety is concerned, it need not detain us much as admittedly, the comments have been made in respect of all the former Chief Justices of the Rajasthan High Court who held that high office till 1994, without putting them on any notice and behind their back. All of them have been condemned unheard. it needs no discussion to say, in the light of the settled law, that an order of this type which violates principles of natural justice and is made behind the back of the affect is wholly unsustainable. On this short ground, all those comments/observations and conclusions and conclusions arrived at by Shethna, J. are required to be quashed and expunged. the learned Attorney General submitted that the observations (supra) were both factually and leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Gandhi Nagar, as High Court Guest House is hereby sanctioned. Yours sd/- Special Secretary to the Govt. By another order of the State Government dated 21.8.1991, Bungalow No. C-42 at Jodhpur was also converted and declared as High Court Guest House ., Both the bungalows, A/2 at Jaipur and C-42 at Jodhpur, were placed at the disposal of the High Court of Rajasthan for their use as High Court Guest Court of Rajasthan for their use as High Court Guest Houses. Neither of the two bungalows was allotted free of rent to any Chief Justice of the High Court. Chief Justice of the High Court has been provided with a rent free official residence only at Jodhpur under Rules even though providing of an official bungalow to the Chief Justice at Jaipur would also have been in order since by the very nature of his office, the Chief Justice could be required to sit at Jaipur also both for administrative as well as judicial work, depending upon the exigencies of the situation. It was only on 21.6.97, when for the first time the Government of Rajasthan allotted Bungalow No.A/c at Jaipur for the Exclusive use of the Chief Justice and Bungalow No.A/5 at Jaipur was declared as the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the establishment of the permanent Bench at Jaipur on 31.1.1977 till 31.8.1988 there was no audit objection raised by the Accountant General of Rajasthan in any of its audit reports with regards to drawl of daily allowance by former Hon'ble Chief Justice or Judges for their stay at Jaipur. That for the first time an audit objection with regard to drawl of full daily allowance by former Hon'ble Chief Justices for their stay at Jaipur was raised by the Accountant General of Rajasthan for the audit period from 1.9.1988 to 31.12.1990. The audit of this period was conducted from 8.1.1991 to 2.2.1991 which was communicated by the Accountant General to the Registrar of Rajasthan High Court and received on 30.3.1991. During the tenure of former Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri K.C.Agarwal, who occupied the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan with effect from 16.4.1990. That similar audit objections were again raised for the period 1.1.1991 to 31.5.1993. The audit for this period was communicated from 15.6.93 to 9.7.93 and the audit report was communicated by the Accountant General to the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court and was received by him on 12.5.94. During this au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the category of the Circuit House. 4. So if Hon'ble Chief Justice is ready to pay the charges at the rate of Circuit House, they may claim full D.A. during their stay at Jaipur. Sd/- The above proposal was followed by the following noting: I have apprised the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Rules position. His Lordships has agreed to pay the charges for his stay in the Guest House as per Circuit House rate. The P.P.S. may be requested to deposit the charges for the stay of Hon'ble Chief Justice in the Guest House, A-2 at Jaipur. sd/- (G.L. Gupta ) 18.6.94 Therefore, what emerges is that an objection was raised by the audit party, while conducting audit from 8.1.1991 to 2.2.1991 for the period 1.9.1988 to 31.12.1990 regarding drawal of full Daily Allowance by the Chief Justices who according to the audit party had been provided free government accommodation at Jaipur presumably treating Bungalow No. A/2 as free Government accommodation allotted to the Chief Justices. The audit objection, for the first time, was conveyed by the Accountant General to the Registrar of the High Court and was received by the Registrar on 30.3.1991. The audit objection, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 and the Judges were entitled: to a daily allowance at the rate of ₹ 100/- for the entire period of absence from headquarters, the absence being reckoned from the time to departure from headquarters to the time of return to headquarters to the time of return to headquarters. Provided that the daily allowance so admissible shall be regulated as follows:- (i) full daily allowance for each completed day, that is, reckoned from mid-night to mid-night: (ii) for absence from headquarters for less than twenty-four hours, the daily allowance shall be at the following rates, namely:- With effect from 4.12.1991 the rate of daily allowance was further enhanced: (e) to a daily allowance at the rate of (Rs. 250/-) for the entire period of absence from headquarters, the absence being reckoned from the time of departure from headquarters to the time of return to headquarters. Provided that the daily allowance so admissible shall be regulated as follows:- (i) full daily allowance fro each completed day, that is, reckoned from mid-night to mid-night; (ii) for absence from headquarters for less than twenty-four hours, the daily allowance shall be at the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur than Jodhpur and illegal drew full D.A. of ₹ 250/- per day for his stay at Jaipur without paying any charges to which there was an audit objection which fact was on the record of this High Court. One really wonders where the learned Judges got the figure of ₹ 250/- per day as the D.A. for the period 1986- 89, during which period Verma, J. was the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. At no point of time, as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court has Justice J.S.Verma drawn a daily allowance at the rate of ₹ 250/- per day for his stay at Jaipur. Therefore, it is wrong to allege that Verma, J. had drawn daily allowance at the rate of ₹ 250/- per day, which rate became effective much after Mr. Justice J.S. Verma had relinquished his office as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on his elevation to the Supreme Court, Surely, Shethna, H. could not have been unaware of this position. Why then did he choose to record an incorrect fact is not understandable? Insofar as the audit objection is concerned, as already noticed, the audit objection was raised for the first time after the audit was conducted between 8.1.1991 to 2.2.1991 and conveyed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be, the High Court only permitted the Chief Justices to stay in that Guest House, but that was an internal arrangement of the High Court and the Government had no say in it. The Bungalow had been declared by the Government to the used as a Guest House of the High Court and placed under control of the High Court and the Government had no say in it., The Bungalow had been declared by the Government to be used as a Guest House of the High Court and placed under control of the High court, not exclusively for the Chief Justices from 1979 of 1997. If the High Court chose not to fix any charges ever since 1979 when the Guest House was allotted to the High Court till 1994, it cannot by ay stretch of imagination be said that the Chief Justices, had been allotted free Government accommodation for their stay at Jaipur in the High Court Guest House, so as to disentitle them to draw full daily allowance at the admissible rates. Providing free boarding/lodging at the expense of the central or the State Government or declaring the occupant as a State Guest is the sine qua non for attracting sub- clause (E) (ii) of Para 2 of the Rules (supra), not entitling a Judge including the Chief Jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates issued to Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice J.S. Verma (the then Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan) on appointment as Judge of this Hon'ble Court, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Agarwal (the then Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan) on his transfer as Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court showed in the case of Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. J.S.Verma that nil recoveries were to be made from his pay and, in the case of Hon'ble Chief Justice K.C. Agarwal, no amount was shown as recoverable from his pay. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexures R1 and R2 are the Last Pay Certificates of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice J.S.Verma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Agarwal. Copies of the Last pay Certificates in support of the above deposition have been placed on record. The last pay certificates was issued by the District Treasury of the Government of Rajasthan in 1989. When the Treasury Officer has certified that 'no' recoveries were due from Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, on his relinquishing the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, it puts the matter completely beyond doubt that neither Mr. Justice J.S.Verma had, drawn any daily allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lence. He is to exercise discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. It must be remembered that it is the duty of every member of the legal fraternity to ensure that the image of the judiciary is not tarnished and its respectability eroded. The manner in which proceedings were taken by the learned Judge in relation to the writ petition disposed of by a Division Bench exposes a total lack of respect for judicial discipline. Judicial authoritariansim is what the proceedings in the instant case smack of. It cannot be permitted under any guise. Judges must be circumspect and self disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. The virtue of humility in the Judges and a constant awareness that investment of power in them is meant for use in public interest and to uphold the majesty of rule of law, would to a large extent ensure self restraint in discharge of all judicial functions and preserve the independence of judiciary. it needs no emphasis to say that all actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -heard case. (6) That the puisne Judges cannot pack and choose any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. (7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice. (8) That Shethna, J. had no authority or jurisdiction to send for the record of the disposed of writ petition and make comments on the manner of transfer of the writ petition to the Division Bench or on the merits of that writ petition. (9) that all comments, observations and findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to the disposed of writ petition were not only unjustified and unwarranted but also without jurisdiction and make the Judge coram-non-judice. (10) That the allegations and comments made by the learned Judges against the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Advocate of the petitioner in the writ petition and the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench which disposed of Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1996 were uncalled for, baseless and without any legal sanction. (11) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
