2005 Supreme(SC) 1045

2005(5) Supreme 642
Supreme Court of India
(From Calcutta High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Samya Sett —Appellant
versus
Shambu Sarkar and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2005
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2979 of 2004)
Decided on 12-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Muralidhar, Somiran Sharma, Amit Sharma and K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates.

Important point
Courts should not make derogatory remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 136 —Remarks made by single Judge of High Court against appellant, a judicial officer—Appellant passed bail order u/s 167(2) in NDPS Act case but later on same day recalled the order on ­Public Prosecutor pointing out that charge­sheet had been filed—Accused filed revision and order under challenge was set aside holding that bail order could not have been recalled without opportunity of hearing to accused and matter was remanded—Appellant again passed order of cancellation of bail holding that provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. were not attracted—High Court again allowed revision against order and made certain remarks and passed strictures—Appeal to expunge remarks and strictures—High Court was not justified in passing strictures—Appellant could not be said to have “completely ignored” directions of High Court—Whether order passed by appellant was correct or not, but remarks made strictures passed and directions issued by Judge of High Court were improper, uncalled for and unwarranted and liable to be expugned.

       Held : Now, whether the second order dated December 15, 2003, passed by the appellant was or was not correct is not the matter in issue in the present proceedings. But, in our opinion, the learned single Judge of the High Court was not justified in passing strictures against the appellant to which reference has been made by us in the earlier part of the judgment. It may be recalled that when the matter had come to the High Court earlier, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the appellant on November 21, 2003 and directed him to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused and to pass an appropriate order ‘in accordance with law’. That direction had already been complied with and carried out by the appellant. He afforded hearing to the accused and rejected the application after considering the arguments put forward by the learned advocate. In our considered opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had attempted ‘to maintain his own order’ though it was held to be bad by the High Court. It also cannot be said that the appellant had “completely ignored” the directions issued by the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court is also not correct in observing that from the order dated December 15, 2003, passed by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant did not realize his mistake and had shown “impolite and arrogant attitude”. Likewise, it cannot be said that the appellant had not shown respect to the other of the superior court and his conduct would destroy judicial system and discipline. To us, it is clear that the appellant, keeping in view the directions issued by the High Court, heard the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the accused and holding that the provisions relating to ‘default bail’ would not apply and the ratio in Aslam was not attracted, rejected the prayer for bail. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was not right in rejecting the application for bail of accused, it was not a case which called for remarks and strictures against him. This Court has, in several cases, deprecated the practice on the part of Judges in passing strictures and in making unsavoury, undeserving, disparaging or derogatory remarks against parties, witnesses as also subordinate officers. (Paras 7 to 9)

       In the present case, however, as we have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment, whether the order passed by the appellant was correct or not, but the remarks made, strictures passed and directions issued by the learned single Judge of the High Court against the appellant were improper, uncalled for and unwarranted. Apart from the fact that they were neither necessary for deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor integral part of the judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not justified. We, therefore, direct deletion of those remarks. (Para 18)