K.P. TIWARI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 29-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, YOGESHWAR DAYAL

Judgment (excerpt)

K.P. TIWARI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 29, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
B 
Administration of Justice-Judicial discipline-Judicial Office~Addi­
tional Sessions Judge--Grant of unmerited bail by-Bail €Jrder reversed by 
High Court-Remarks passed against judicial officer in judgment attributing 
motive to him--f'ower of higher courts to pass strictures against judges of C 
subordinate courts-Held, judges of superior courts must exercise self- restraint 
and should not ignore judicial precaution and propriety-While expressing 
disapproval of orders of subordinate courts, motive should not be attributed 
to them--Proper course to adopt is to make not of conduct of concerned 
officer in confidential record of his work if he is consistently passing orders D 
creating a su8picion of judicial conduct. 
The petitioner was an Additional District Judge. Bail applications of 
five accused charged with offences punishable under ss. 147, 148, 149, 506, · 
341 and 302, IPC came before him for consideration at a time when a 
charge-sheet in respect of the offence committed by the accused was being E 
processed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner con· 
sidered the bail applications on merits and rejected the same. Inspite of 
the rejection on merits, he first granted the accused temporary bail and 
subsequently permanent bail. On an application for cancellation of bail 
preferred by the complainant, the High Court held that there was no 
justification for granting bail to any of the accused. While reversing the F 
orders of bail passed by the petitioner, the High Court made remarks in 
the judgment attributing motive to him. The petitioner filed the special 
leave petition seeking expunction of the remarks made against hini by the 
High Court in its judgment. 
G 
Allowing the petitions and expunging the impugned remarks, this 
Court, 
HELD : 1.1. It is one of the functions of the superior courts to modify 
or set aside the orders of the lower courts which are not justified in law 
or in fact. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of judges and hence H 
497 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties 
to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes he is likely to err. 
Every error, however gross it may look, should not therefore, be attributed 
to improper motive. [500-A-D] 
1.2. If a particular judicial officer is consistently passing orders 
B creating suspicion of judicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly 
. attributable to innocent functioning, the proper course for the higher court 
to adopt is to made not of his conduct in the confindential record of his 
work and to use it on proper occasion. [500-E] 
C 
1.3. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure 
judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary f~om all concerned. No 
greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the 
confidence of the people in the judiciary than when the judges of the higher 
courts publicly pass stricture against the subordinate judges and express 
lack of faith in them. The judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint 
D and should not ignore judicial precaution and propriety. There are ways 
of expressing disapproval of the orders of the subordinate courts but 
attributing motives is certainly not one of them. [500-F -HJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special leave Petition 
E · (CRL.) No. 2081-82of1993. 
From the Judgment and order dated 13.7.91 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Misc. Crl. Case No. 816/91 and 466/91. 
KN. Shalla and Ahmed Khan for the petitioner. 
F 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is petition by ·a judicial officer who at the relevant time was an 
Additional Sessions Judge, for expunging remarks which were made 
against him by the High Court while reversing the orders of bail passed by 
G him in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 816 of 1991 and 466 of 1991. 
2. The undisputed fact are that the accused in those cases are 
charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 341 
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was being processed in 
respect of the offences in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the 
H relevant time. The five accused in the meanwhile, applied for bail. Their 
.. 
K.P. TIWARlv. STATEOFM.P. 
499 
application was considered on merits and rejected by the petit

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