IN THE MATTER OF: 'K', A JUDICIAL OFFICER versus -

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 08-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+-
IN THE MATTER OF: 'K', A JUDICIAL OFFICER 
FEBRUARY 8, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. AND R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 
JZ1dicia/ Restraint : 
JZ1dicia/ order-Remarks against sl/bordinate judge by Court of Sllperior 
jurisdiction-Judicial restraint and discipline-Need for, emphasised-Held, 
A 
B 
a judge is not expected to indulge. in criticising the conduct of the subordinate 
judicial or quasi-judicial authority unless expression of opinion thereon C 
becomes necesswy as a part of reasoning requisite for arriving at a conc!Z1sio11 
necessary for deciding the main controversy-Dais in a collrt room not 
properly built-Obstruction in the fimctioning of the coZ1rt-PZ1blic Works 
Department officials non responsive-Metropolitan Magistrate initialing 
contempt proceedings and taking cognisance of sZ1bstantive offences under D 
the Indian Penal Code against erring officials-High Collrl making certain 
observations against the Magistrate in its jlldicial order while quashing the 
aforesaid proceedings-legality of-Held, such remarks were not necessary 
for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof-Direction for 
expunging the objectionable remarks-Such remarks which percolated into 
the annual confidential rolls of the Metropolitan Magistrate also expllnged-
E 
Contempt of CoZ1rts Act, 1971-./ndian Penal Code, 1872-Sections 380, 
201, 120-B. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articl.es 136, 142-Remarks against £1 subordinate jlldicial officer F 
contained in jlldgement order of High Court-Expunging of-Jurisdiction of 
Supreme Court. 
Article 235-Administrative and disciplinary control of High Court 
over subordinate judiciary-Role as a fi'iend, philosopher and gilide-
Jncorporating criticisms and observations against subordinate judicial officer G 
in judicial pronouncements-Infirmities therein, enumerated-Alternative 
appropriate course to follow on the administrative side suggested 
Appellant is a judicial officer posted as Metropolitan Magistrate. A 
dais was constructed in her court room by the Public Works Department H 
959 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I j I S.C.R. 
A during summer vacation when she was away from the.headquarters. Dais not 
being properly built, caused obstruction in the functioning of the court. The 
offidals concerned being non-responsive, appellant initiated proceedings 
calling upon the officials to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt 
of Courts Act be not drawn up and a reference be not made to the High Co'urt. 
B During the pendency of these proceedings, the Public Works department 
chopped off a wooden piece forming part of the dais and removed the same. 
On these facts coming to the knowledge of the appellant, she took cognisance 
of offences punishable under Sections 380, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal 
Code. 
C 
The persons proceeded against preferred a petition before High Court 
seeking quashing of both the aforesaid proceedings under the Contempt of 
Courts Act and the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the petition 
before the High Court, appellant having felt satisfied by the response of 
officials concerned, directed the notice under the Contempt of Courts Act to 
be discharged. To that extent, the petition filed before the High Court was 
D rendered infructuous. Subsequently, the High Court directed the quashing of 
the proceedings under the Indian Penal Code. While quashing the said 
proceedings, the High Court made certain observations against the appellant 
in its judicial order. The said observations so made later on found their way 
into her annual confidential records. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present 
), 
E appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Metropolitan Magistrate in initiating contempt proceedings 
and taking cognisance of substantive offences under the Indian Penal Code 
F against the officials of Public Works Department was not properly advised or 
was at the worst indulging into a misadventure. Therefore to the extent of 
quashing of the proceedings by the High Court no fault can be found and 
certainly no one has come up to this Court complaining against the merits of 
that part of the order of the high Court by which criminal proceedings have 
G been quashed. Nevertheless, the ill advised move or misadventure of the 
Metropolitan Magistrate was neither a misconduct nor an outcome of malice. 
The facts and circumstances of the case point out that her only desire was to 
make her court room functional. The remarks were not necessary

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