High Court: Courts Must Be ‘Tolerant and Largehearted’ Towards Minor Lapses of Public Prosecutors

Srinagar, J&K – In a significant pronouncement on judicial temperament and the treatment of public servants, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphatically ruled that courts must exercise tolerance and restraint when dealing with minor procedural issues involving public prosecutors. Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment that quashes adverse remarks against an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), asserted that a simple request for an adjournment or an inability to argue a matter due to conflicting duties does not justify the passing of harsh strictures.

The ruling, which expunges disparaging comments made by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in Samba, reinforces a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence cautioning against the casual use of adverse remarks in judicial orders. The High Court underscored that such remarks can cause irreparable harm to an officer's career and should only be made when absolutely essential for the case's disposal and after affording the concerned individual a fair opportunity to be heard.

Background of the Controversy: A Prosecutor's Dilemma

The case, Anu Charak Vs UT Of J&K , originated from an order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba. The petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, was given additional charge of the JJB on a day when the regular prosecutor was on leave. Simultaneously, she was preoccupied with recording prosecution witness statements in a different court—the Court of the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba—an engagement that lasted the entire day.

Consequently, she was unable to appear before the JJB to argue a pending bail application. The JJB, viewing her absence as a "dereliction of duty," not only passed disparaging remarks against her in its order but also directed that the matter be reported to the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, for "appropriate action." Aggrieved by the remarks and the potential disciplinary fallout, the APP petitioned the High Court to have them expunged.

Judicial Analysis: Upholding Principles of Restraint and Fairness

Justice Sanjay Dhar undertook a meticulous review of the established legal principles governing the use of adverse remarks by courts. The judgment leans heavily on foundational precedents set by the Supreme Court, creating a compelling argument for judicial magnanimity.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:

The High Court's analysis began with a reference to the landmark case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 12 SCC 689 . In that case, the Supreme Court had laid down a three-pronged test for courts to consider before recording strictures: 1. Did the party concerned have an opportunity to explain or defend their conduct? 2. Is there sufficient evidence on record to justify the remarks? 3. Were the remarks necessary for the decision of the case?

Justice Dhar noted that disparaging remarks should never be made lightly, as they can inflict serious and lasting damage on an individual's character, integrity, and career prospects.

Further bolstering this position, the Court cited State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 575 , where the Apex Court highlighted that adverse judicial remarks, especially when coupled with a direction for departmental inquiry, can prove to be a "death knell" for an officer's career.

Quoting the constitutional bench decision in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703) , Justice Dhar reiterated a timeless judicial axiom: "The higher the forum, the greater the need for restraint and sobriety." While judges possess freedom and independence, these must be exercised with judicious moderation.

Application to the Present Case:

Applying these rigorous standards, Justice Dhar concluded that the JJB had acted hastily and without due process. The Court observed that the entire episode appeared to be a result of a "communication gap" rather than willful negligence on the part of the APP. The JJB, without making any effort to ascertain the reason for her absence or providing her an opportunity to explain her conflicting official duties, proceeded to pass adverse remarks.

The High Court found that these remarks were neither justified by the facts nor necessary for the adjudication of the bail application before the Board. Justice Dhar pointedly remarked, “Time and again this Court has cautioned the courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice.”

The Core Principle: A Call for Judicial Magnanimity

The crux of the High Court's judgment lies in its powerful call for a more empathetic and understanding approach from the judiciary towards the practical challenges faced by legal practitioners and public servants.

In a widely quoted passage, Justice Dhar articulated the expected judicial standard:

“The courts are expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanour of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant. Merely, because a public prosecutor has been unable to argue a matter or has sought time to prepare the brief does not call for passing of strictures… that too in a case, where the accused was not behind the bars and heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day.”

This observation effectively frames the issue not as one of professional misconduct but as a minor procedural lapse that could have been easily accommodated without prejudice to the case, especially since the liberty of the accused was not at stake.

The Verdict and Its Implications

Finding the JJB's remarks to be "uncalled for and unnecessary," the High Court allowed the petition. It directed that the disparaging remarks recorded in the Board's order be expunged. Furthermore, the Court restrained the Deputy Director of Prosecution from initiating or continuing any disciplinary action against the petitioner based on the JJB's order, thereby providing complete relief.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent and a crucial reminder for the subordinate judiciary and tribunals. Its implications include:

• Protection for Public Servants: It provides a shield for public prosecutors and other government officials against arbitrary and career-damaging remarks, allowing them to perform their duties without undue fear of censure for minor, unavoidable issues.
• Reinforcement of Due Process: The ruling affirms the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), insisting that no one should be condemned without being given a chance to explain their position.
• Guidance on Judicial Conduct: It offers clear guidance on the need for judicial restraint, patience, and a pragmatic understanding of the systemic pressures within the justice delivery system. It advocates for a collaborative rather than an adversarial relationship between the bench and the bar.

Ultimately, the High Court’s decision is a powerful endorsement of a judiciary that is not only a dispenser of justice but also a model of fairness, restraint, and professional courtesy.