1996 Supreme(SC) 978

1996(4) Supreme 524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
P.K. Dave -Appellant
versus
Peoples Union of Civil Liberties              (Delhi) & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8242 of 1996
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16076 of 1995)
Decided on 10-5-1996

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Court should refrain from using intemperate language as part of judicial discipline while examining the role and conduct of high constitutional functionaries.

Headnote:(i) Expunction or Strictures Made by Court-Power to expunge any remark made by a Court in a judgment-An extraordinary power-A judge should be extremely careful while commenting upon conduct of another individual particularly when that individual is not before the Court-Judicial discipline.

       Held : The power to expunge any remark made by a Court in a judgment is an extraordinary power and can be exercised only when a clear case is made out. It is also a cardinal principle that a judge should take special care in making disparaging remark against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for consideration before him in any case to be decided by him and should not make any un-called for remarks which would be against the judicial discipline. If the relief sought for can be given to the applicant without dubbing the conduct of the person concerned to be mala fide then the Court should refrain from coming to any conclusion on mere assertions in asmuch as the allegations of mala fides have to be specifically made and would have to be established by the person who seeks relief on that ground. To avoid harsh words and intemperate language and to have self-restraint is a part of judicial training of a judge and, therefore, a judge should be extremely careful while commenting upon the conduct of another individual particularly when that individual is not before the Court. (Para 10)

       (ii) Public Interest Litigation-Report indicating large scale financial irregularities in the matter of purchase in a hospital-Suggestion of Health Secretary to Government of Delhi to suspend the Director of the Hospital-Chief Secretary did not approve of the suggestion of the Secretary to suspend the Director but agreed with alternative suggestion to transfer him for holding a fair and impartial enquiry - Appellant, Lt. Governor disapproved suggestion of Chief Secretary and held that no action need be taken-Appellant s inaction in not shifting the Director challenged-High Court did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion about the impropriety of the decision-Decision of appellant influenced by someone else-Strictures sought to be expunged has been justifiably made-No case for expunction made out-Order of appellant not to shift him solely because he was a doctor of national repute-Does not reflect consideration of kinds of good administration.

       Held : The operative part of the order of the appellant indicates that he was not willing to agree with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary even to transfer Dr. Khalilullah from his position as Director of G.B. Pant Hospital so as to have a fair and proper enquiry solely because of the fact that Dr. Khalilullah happens to be a nationally recognised specialist and had been honoured with Padma Shree and Padma Bhushan. It is the common administrative practice that no enquiry into the conduct of the Head of an Organisation can be impartially made so long he is allowed to continue as the Head of the Orgnisation. In the case in hand the notes of the Secretary clearly indicated that several important files have been destroyed in the meantime and the doctors and other employees of the hospital are reluctant to speak against Dr. Khalilullah so long as he continues as the Director of the Hospital. The Chief Secretary having considered the notes of the Secretary had, therefore, suggested that Dr. Khalilullah should be transferred from his position in the interest of holding a fair and proper enquiry into the scandal. We are afraid, that if a nationally recognised specialist having been honoured with Padma Shree and Padma Bhushan gets involved in financial irregularities and an enquiry becomes imperative then administrative exigencies did require for his shifting from the place. (Para 11)

       Further held, the strictures mentioned in d sought to be expunged has been justifiably made and no case for expunction has been made out, but the word dictated is probably not appropriate. We accordingly modify the same by replacing the word dictated by influenced . (Para 13)

       Coming to the stricture a` we, however, find the materials on record do not justify to dub the decision of the Governor as mala fide and we, therefore, direct expunction of the word and mala fides after the word arbitrariness from the stricture a . So far as the stricture b is concerned in our considered opinion, it was not necessary for the Court to hold that the Lt. Governor abused his power though the Court was justified in holding that the Governor acted in an arbitrary and unresonable manner. As has been stated earlier the Court should refrain from using intemperate language as part of judicial discipline while examining the role and conduct of high constitutional functionaries. In the circumstances, we direct that the expression abused his power be expunged from stricture b . (Para 14)