Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
NEERAJ GARG – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4555 4559 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.86438647 of 2021)
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Administration of Justice – Judicial Restraint – Importance of avoiding unsavoury remarks in judicial orders as per established norms of judicial propriety – While it is of fundamental importance in realm of administration of justice to allow Judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for Judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on conduct of Counsel which may have no
bearing on adjudication of dispute before Court – In present case, remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on professional integrity of appellant – Such condemnation of Counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of principles of audi alteram partem – Requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be missing in offending comments – Tenor of remarks recorded against appellant will not only demean him amongst his professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career – If comments remain unexpunged in court judgments, it will be a cross that Appellant will have to bear, all his life – To allow him to suffer would in our view be prejudicial and unjust – Comments were also unnecessary for decision of Court – Offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to appellant’s reputation or his work as a member of Bar – Expunction of remarks ordered. (Paras 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is a practicing lawyer, before the High Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing as member of Bar. The present appeal is limited to expunging certain observations
made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court while deciding four cases in which the appellant was representing one of contesting parties.
Findings of Court:
Offending remarks recorded by the learned judge against appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court.
Result – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Leave granted. The appellant is a practicing lawyer, before the High Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing as member of the Bar. The present appeal is limited to expunging certain observations made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court while deciding four cases in which the appellant was representing one of the contesting parties. The following are the orders and proceedings of the High Court with which, we are concerned in this matter:
2. This Court issued returnable notice in the matter on 02.07.2021 and appointed Mr. Amar Dave as the amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr. Dave appears and makes submissions accordingly. The Office Report in the case reflects that the Counsel for the Appellant has circulated a letter dated 13.07.2021 stating therein that the Petition has been filed only for expunging certain observations recorded against the Appellant by the High Court in the concerned cases and the Appellant is not seeking any relief against any of the arrayed Respondents and as such they be treated as Proforma Respondents.
3. Representing the appellant, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellant is regularly practicing in the Uttarakhand High Court with a fairly large practice. The Counsel then submits that the remarks/observations made by the learned Judge against the Appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him, before recording the adverse comments. It is also submitted that those recordings are neither essential nor necessary for the Court’s verdict in the concerned cases. According to Mr. Rohatgi, such adverse comments will not only undermine the professional reputation of the Appellant but would also impact his standing and practice as a lawyer.
4. The learned amicus curiae, Mr. Amar Dave, together with the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi have drawn specific attention of this Court to the following remarks in the High Court’s judgement dated 14.11.2017, in the W.P. (M/S) No.2216 of 2017 and W.P. (M/S) No.2208 of 2017, where the Appellant was appearing for one of the contesting parties in the case.
16. I express my deep anguish and hesitantly refraining myself from taking any action against the counsel for the petitioner for producing only part of document and placing reliance on the same for procuring an interim order by suppressing material fact.
17. The counsel for the petitioner is a seasonal advocate he owes a responsibility towards the institution and fraternity too, he had deliberately created a wrong example for the pious institution.
*** *** *** *** *** ”
5. Similarly, in the second case, i.e., S.A. No.190/2019 the learned Judge on 22.11.2019 recorded the following comments:
2. In the present Second Appeal , when the argument for the learned counsel for the appellant was initiated too be addressed for quite some time, this Court is of the view that the tenacity of argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant was in a manner as if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole, which this Court will not hesitate to re mark that was a brutal assassination of time for those other litigants, whose matters were pending consideration on the said date before this Court. 'It further reflected that as if it was not an argument for the case but rather for the visitors' gallery.
*** *** *** *** ***”
6. In the third judgement, i.e., S.A. 182 of 2019 dated 12.03.2020, the following unacceptable conduct of the counsel was noted:
In order to avoid an argument at admission stage of the present Secon
Judicial Restraint – While it is of fundamental importance in realm of administration of justice to allow Judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone,....
Adverse remarks against advocates must comply with natural justice principles, necessitating an opportunity for the advocate to be heard before such remarks are recorded.
Remarks by higher courts against subordinate judicial officers must be necessary and justified to uphold judicial dignity and independence.
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
Public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective; and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of a....
Judicial remarks affecting a lawyer's reputation must be justified and made after providing an opportunity to respond, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized judicial restraint and the necessity to avoid unfounded remarks that could damage an advocate's reputation, recognizing the reasonable apprehension of bias necessitating case tra....
(1) Bail proceedings – When evidence is not fully analyzed and presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of accused, courts must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks ag....
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
