BRAJ KISHORE THAKUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 24-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BRAJ KISHORE THAKUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 24, 1997 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Judicial Restraint : Bail granted by District and Sessions Judge-Bail 
Order challenged by Respondent-High Cowt cancelled the bail Oi"der and 
also making severe strictures against District and Sessions Judge with the 
C remarks that, "the act of granting bail was for extraneous consideration'' and 
"he does noi deseive to remain as Sessions Judge and he should be divested 
of his original powers''--Held, Remarks were unjustified and therefore ex-
punged-Constitution of India Alt. 136 Practice & Procedure-Judicial order 
passed by District & Sessions Judge-Reasons-High Court calling for repo1t 
D giving reasons in support of the order-Held, unwholesome practice and hence 
deprecated. 
The appellant-District Judge, granted bail to two persons involved 
in offence under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. The Respondent challenged the Bail Order before 
E the High Court Single Judge of the High Court called for the record and 
a report from the District & Sessions Judge and had gone through the 
same. Thereafter, he had cancelled the bail order, and also made severe 
remarks against the appellant observing that the act of granting bail 
ignoring provisions of S. 37 of N.D.P.S. Act amounted to judicial in di sere· 
F 
G 
tion and bail granted for extraueous considerations and he does not 
deserve to remain as Sessions Judge and he should be divested of his 
original powers. Being aggrieved, by this Order, the appellant filed this 
appeal by special leave. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge was well within his 
jurisdiction when he passed the order granting bail to the. two persons, 
though it is a different matter, whether the discretion was well exercised 
by him. When the Single Judge made unjustifiable, unsavoury and scathing 
remarks on an undefended judge of the subordinate court; he was only 
H wounding the institution of judiciary. Therefore, in the interest of justice 
420 
-
-
,.. 
B.K. THAKUR v. U.0.1. 
421 
and fairness the offending remarks made by the single judge are expunged. A 
[426-C-D] 
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal, AIR [1991] SCC 558, referred 
to. 
2. Judicial restraint is a virtue. A virtue which shall be concomitant B 
of every judicial expression. It is an attribute of a Judge which he is obliged 
to keep refurbished from time to time, particularly while dealing with 
matters before him whether in exercise of appellate or revisional or other 
supervisory jurisdiction. Higher Courts must remind themselves constant-
ly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors 
which could possibly have crept in the findings or orders of courts at the C 
lower. tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial 
personages in lower cadre. [422-C-D] 
. Kasinath v. State of Bihar, JT (1996) 4 SC 605; K.P. Tiwari v. State of 
'M.P., AIR (1994) SC 1031 and Isuhari Prasad Mishra v. Mohamad I~s, D 
[1963] 3 SCR 722, relied on. · 
Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, .(1994) 2 PWR 600, referred to. 
3. No greater damage can be caused to the administration of Justice 
and to the confidence of people in judicial institutions when Judges of E 
higher court publicly express lack of faith in the Subordinate Judges. 1.t 
has been s_aid time and again that respect for judiciary is not in hands by 
using intemperate language and by causing aspersions against lower 
judiciary. A judicial officer against whom expressions are made in the 
judgment could not appear before the Higher Court to defend his order. 
Judges of High Court must therefore exercise greater judicial restraint 
and adopt great care when they are tempted to employ strong terms 
against the lower judiciary. [ 426-G-H] 
F 
4.1. Reasons in support of a judicial order can appear only in the 
order itself and it is an unwholesome practice to compel a judicial officer G 
to write a report subsequently in defence of his conclusion. [422-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
200 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.96 of the Patna High Court H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A in Crl.M. No. 10564 of 1996. 
L.R. Singh for the Appellant. 
Udai Singh and A.K. Jha for the Respondent No. 4. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.