1. Special Leave Petitions filed by a judicial officer seeking expunction of adverse remarks made by a High Court in a judgment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 741
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
K.G. SHANTI - Appellants
Vs.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 929-930/2021
[@SLP (CIVIL) NOS.4663-4664/2021]
[@ Diary No(s). 4210/2021]
Decided on : 16-03-2021
Important Points
Adverse remarks cannot be made against a judicial officer without providing an opportunity to explain their conduct. Such observations must be judicial in nature, maintaining sobriety and moderation. Concerns regarding a judicial officer's performance should be addressed through administrative channels, ensuring the officer is heard before any action is taken.
Subject
Judicial Review - Contempt of Court
Headnote
Motor Accidents - False and frivolous - Tribunals and if this is the manner in which Tribunal could be hoodwinked by a ground of tricksters, then there is no purpose in having Tribunals at all and it would be convenient to allow vagabonds to file false and frivolous claims and get the same allowed at their whims and facies - Court are in agreement with learned counsel for appellant that appellant cannot be condemned unheard – Court must notice at threshold that language used is extremely strong and the Court should be circumspect in using such language while penning down its order qua judicial officers – Court really cannot appreciate use of this language, whatever may have been the conduct of appellant - Held, Court may also note that what we have said aforesaid on the language to be deployed has also been opined upon as the overall test of any criticism or observations must be judicial – Case are more so when in impugned judgment itself it has been found that it is not surprising that when there are concerted efforts by interested witnesses and devious claimants, it may become difficult for Court to get to the bottom of truth - Court that if it really thinks that there are serious aspects arising in respect of manner of passing of the judgment by Tribunal - High Court on administrative side from issuing a notice to judicial officer and taking appropriate decision after giving her an opportunity to put forth her stand - Appeals stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The judicial officer was condemned unheard, and the strong adverse observations would have serious negative consequences on her judicial career. (Para 6 )
3. Courts must use sober and moderate language regarding judicial officers and provide an opportunity to explain conduct before making adverse remarks. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 )
4. Adverse remarks against a judicial officer cannot be made without first providing an opportunity to explain their conduct. (Para 10 )
5. Adverse observations set aside, with liberty granted to the High Court to initiate administrative proceedings after providing the officer an opportunity to be heard. (Para 12 )
6. Can a High Court make adverse remarks against a subordinate judicial officer without a hearing?
No. It has been categorically laid down that adverse remarks cannot be made against a judicial officer without first giving the judicial officer an opportunity to explain his conduct. (Para 10 )
7. What is the appropriate standard for judicial criticism of subordinate officers?
The overall test of any criticism or observations must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. (Para 10 )
8. What remedy exists for a judicial officer aggrieved by adverse remarks in a judgment?
The court possesses an extraordinary power to expunge adverse remarks to redress a kind of grievance for which law does not provide any other remedy in express terms. (Para 9 )
9. What is the correct procedure for a High Court to address grave errors by a judicial officer?
The High Court should direct the matter to be taken on the administrative side, where notice is issued to the officer to explain their conduct before deciding on action. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. The Special Leave Petitions have been preferred by the judicial officer manning the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in respect of certain observations made personally against her in the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the endeavour of the claimants to assail the judgment has been rejected in SLP [C] Nos.8267-8268/2020 on 29.07.2020. We are thus, only called upon to look into the grievance made by the officer qua the observations made against her.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard leaned counsel for the appellant on the limited aforesaid issue.
4. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the observations in paras 13 and 16 as under:
“13………this Court is unable to understand the level of integrity of the Presiding Officer in deliberately not observing these mistakes and proceeding to believe the bundle of lies which are stated in the complaint, which are contrary to the documents which are already on record. This conduct of the Tribunal is really baffling. Be that as it may.
xxx xxx xxx
16……If this is the standard of the Tribunals and if this is the manner in which the Tribunal could be hoodwinked by a ground of tricksters, then there is no purpose in having Tribunals at all and it would be convenient to allow the vagabonds to file false and frivolous claims and get the same allowed at their whims and facies. The manner in which the claim petition is decided clearly shows that there is no sense of order in conducting the
claim petitions. This is shameless state of affairs. Be that as it may.”
5. He further submits that on the one hand, such a strong observation has been made while on the other hand, the Bench while coming to the conclusion has observed in para 23 as under:
“23………it is not surprising that when there is concerted effort by the interested witnesses and devious claimants, it is difficult for the Court to get to the bottom of the truth….”
6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been condemned unheard and the observations have serious consequences so far as her judicial career is concerned.
7. We are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant cannot be condemned unheard. We must notice at the threshold that the language used is extremely strong and the Court should be circumspect in using such language while penning down its order qua judicial officers. We really cannot appreciate the use of this language, whatever may have been the conduct of the appellant.
8. It was in any case open to the Division Bench, if it found that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal had grave errors which casts some doubt on the performance of the officer, to direct the matter to be taken on the administrative side in which case notice would have been issued to the appellant to explain her conduct and she would have got an opportunity to put forth her point of view and then it would have been open on the administrative side, if so advised to whether to take some action or not.
9. We may note that the aspect of remarks against subordinate judicial officers and the process for expunging such adverse remarks have formed part of more than one opinion of this Court stating that the power to expunge remarks exists for redressal of a kind of grievance for which law does not provide any other remedy in express terms though it is an
extraordinary power [‘K’ A Judicial Officer, In re (2001) 3 SCC 54.].
10. We may also note that what we have said aforesaid on the language to be deployed has also been opined upon as the overall test of any criticism or observations must be judicial
in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve[State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim -(1964) 2 SCR 363]. It has been categorically laid down that there cannot be an adverse remark made against a judicial officer without first giving an opportunity to the judicial officer to explain his conduct [A
