2009 Supreme(SC) 743

2009(3) Supreme 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan CJI and P. Sathasivam, J.
Parkash Singh Teji — Appellant
versus
Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2586-2587 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 25544-25545 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-04-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof.

Headnote:Expunction of remarks made against a judge – Suit for recovery filed by respondent1 against respondent2 before Appellant, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi – Dismissed by appellant .on ground that sufficient opportunities were given to plaintiff to lead evidence – Appeal filed thereagainst by plaintiff – Allowed by High Court, remanding case to trial Court – High Court, while remanding case, made certain remarks and directions against appellant – Application filed by appellant for expunction of said remarks – High Court, disposed of application stating that remarks were only corrective in nature and did not suggest any lack of integrity on part of officer – Appeals thereagainst – In the facts and circumstances of case and the materials available, held that remarks/observations and directions made in para 10 of the order of High Court were not warranted – Higher Courts every day come across orders of lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside – Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions – A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity, however, sometimes is likely to err – It has to be noted that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure – They do not have the benefits which are available in the higher courts – In those circumstances, remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings – It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof – The direction of High Court placing copy of their order on the personal/service record of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his career – Based on the above direction, there is every possibility of taking adverse decision about the performance of the appellant – Hence held that adverse remarks made against appellant were neither justified nor called for – In the interest of justice and fairness, offending remarks made against appellant in para 10 of the impugned order of the High Court were expunged – Appeals allowed. (Paras 10 to 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and final orders of High Court of Delhi dated 06.07.2006 and 23.03.2007 in R.F.A. No.178 of 2006 and in C.M. No. 13584 of 2006 in R.F.A. No. 178 of 2006 respectively whereby the High Court declined to expunge the adverse remarks made against the appellant. The appellant, who is a Judicial Officer, is now challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2006 of the High Court to the limited extent whereby the Division Bench passed certain adverse remarks against him.

       Findings of the Court :

        Higher Courts every day come across orders of lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity, however, sometimes is likely to err. It has to be noted that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure. They do not have the benefits which are available in the higher courts. In those circumstances, remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings. It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. The direction of High Court placing copy of their order on the personal/service record of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his career. Based on the above direction, there is every possibility of taking adverse decision about the performance of the appellant. Hence held that adverse remarks made against appellant were neither justified nor called for. In the interest of justice and fairness, offending remarks made against appellant in para 10 of the impugned order of the High Court were expunged.

       Result : Appeals allowed.