LexAWANI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 3 S.C.R. 416 AWANI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1340-1341 of 2013) FEBRUARY 13, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Judiciary - Strictures against judicial officer - Propriety of C - Held: Legal system acknowledges fallibility of the Judges, hence provides for appeals and revisions - Remarks/ observations and strictures against lower judicial officers should be avoided particularly when the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings - In the instant case, in D view of the facts, strictures against the judicial officer not justified. The High Court, while allowing a second appeal, passed severe strictures against the appellant, who was E a judicial officer, and had decided the additional issues in the case, on the directions issued by his predecessor judicial officer. The appellant filed modification application for expunging the remarks, and the same was disposed of without modifying the judgment. The appellant filed present appeals seeking expunction of the F adverse remarks. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The higher courts every day come across G orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. The legal . system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere H 416 AWANI KUMAR UPADHYAYv. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF417 JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD and are constantly under psychologica.1 pressure and they A do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put- forth his reasonings. It is settled legal position that no adverse remark can be made against any judicial officer B without giving an opportunity to explain the conduct. [Paras 6 and 12] [421-H; 424-E-H] 2. If the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will C cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will n~t affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging th.ose remarks are to be allowed. Harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law D unless it is really for the decision of the case as an . integral part thereof. [Para 12] [424-H; 425-A-B] 3. The adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for. The perusal of the E impugned judgment would show that the word "severe strictures" is mentioned whereas no logical reasoning has been given as ~o what is the fault of the appellant and the High Court has not adduced any finding as to why it has disagreed with the reasoning given by the appellant F particularly when the appellant asserted that neither he has rendered any decision as trial court Judge nor as the first Appellate Court Judge except deciding 12 additional issues on the directions issued by his predecessor. The strictu.res passed against the' appellant are neither G warranted nor is in conformity with the settled law as .. propounded by this Court. The adverse remarks passed in the impugned judgment and the final orders, insofar as the appellant is concerned are set aside. [Para 13 and 14] [425-C-F] H A B 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. Parkash Singh Teji vs. Northern India Goods Transport Company Private Limited and Anr. (2009) 12 SCC 577:2009 (6) SCR 278; Amar Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2012) 6 sec 491: 2012 (5) SCR 1154 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2009 (6) SCR 278 2012 (5) SCR 1154 Relied on Relied on Para 6 Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. C 1340-1341 of 2013. From the Judgments & Orders dated 01.03.2012 & 23.04.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 and Civil Misc. Modification 0 Application No. 122702 in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, B.P. Gupta, Naresh. Kumar for the Appellant. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Deepti R. Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari, E Vishwajit Singh, Ashok Kumar Gupta II for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. These app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.