Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Raju Ram Choudhary, S/o Lt. Sh. Moola Ram Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against adverse remarks in prior orders (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and necessity of remarks (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the necessity of remarks (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principle of natural justice and limitation of remarks (Para 8 , 12) |
| 5. final order for expunging remarks without affecting jurisdiction (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking expunction of certain adverse, sweeping and stigmatic remarks recorded against him and the investigating agency in two orders passed by the courts below, namely, the order dated 28.07.2022 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No.32/2022 and the subsequent order dated 01.03.2025 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balesar in Criminal Case No.170/2022.
2. The writ petition does not assail the jurisdiction of the courts below to entertain the proceedings nor does it seek interference with the operative directions issued therein insofar as they relate to remand or reconsideration. The grievance raised is confined
Judicial remarks that carry civil consequences must not be made without an opportunity for the affected party to be heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.
Judicial remarks against individuals must comply with principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and an opportunity for a hearing before issuing adverse comments, particularly for officials.
The court emphasized that adverse remarks against individuals must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity to be heard before such comments are made.
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Adverse remarks against public servants must be justified by evidence and made only after affording an opportunity to explain their conduct; mere negligence does not equate to wilful negligence under....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
