NEERAJ GARG versus SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1140 · Decided: 02-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
NEERAJ GARG
v.
SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4555-4559 of 2021)
AUGUST 02, 2021
[R. F. NARIMAN AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Expunction of remarks: Remarks made against counsel in
judgments in which he was representing one of the parties – Judicial
propriety – Held: The offending comments recorded in the High
Court judgments were apparently made based on the personal
perception of the Judge – Before recording the adverse comments,
counsel was not given any opportunity to put forth his explanation
– Such condemnation of the counsel, without giving him an
opportunity of being heard would be a negation of the principles
of audi alteram partem – The requisite degree of restraint and
sobriety expected in such situations was missing in the offending
comments – The comments were also unnecessary for the decision
of the Court – The offending remarks recalled to avoid any future
harm to the counsel’s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar
– Remarks accordingly expunged – Natural Justice – Principles of
audi alteram partem.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1. While it is of fundamental importance in the realm
of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their
functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone,
it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint
and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel
which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute
before the Court. [Para 15][1148-A-C]
2. The offending comments recorded in the High Court
judgments, could have been avoided as they were unnecessary
for deciding the disputes. Moreover, they appear to be based on
the personal perception of the Judge. It is also apparent that the
Judge did not, before recording the adverse comments, give any
opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his explanation. The
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1140
1140
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
offending remarks recorded by the judge against the appellant
should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The
appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not
provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself.
The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the
Court. It is accordingly held that the offending remarks should
be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant’s reputation
or his work as a member of the Bar. Therefore,  the extracted
remarks are expunged. [Paras 16, 18][1148-C-G]
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 :
[1964] SCR 363; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma
[1968] 1 SCR 813; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar
Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533 : [1990] 2 SCR 110; Abani
Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa (1995) 4 Suppl SCC 169 :
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 333; Samya Sett v. Shambhu
Sarkar and Another (2005) 6 SCC 767 : [2005] 2 Suppl.
SCR 686; A.N. Perera v. D.L.H. Perera and Ors. (1982)
SCC SL SC 20 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1964] SCR 363
relied on
Para 9
[1968] 1 SCR 813
relied on
Para 10
[1990] 2 SCR 110
relied on
Para 11
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 333
relied on
Para 12
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 686
relied on
Para 13
(1982) SCC SL SC 20
relied on
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4555-
4559 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2017, 22.11.2019,
12.03.2020 and 22.02.2021 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2216 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.2208
of 2017, Second Appeal No.190 of 2019, Second Appeal No.182 of 2019
and Writ Petition (M/S) No.519 of 2019 respectively.
NEERAJ GARG v. SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Mukul Rohtagi, Krishnan Venugopal, Amar Dave (AC), Sr. Advs.,
Gaurav Agrawal, Rahul Pratap, Shivendra Singh, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave granted. The appellant is a practicing lawyer, before the
High Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing as member of
the Bar. The present appeal is limited to expunging certain observations
made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court while
deciding four cases in which the appellant was representing one of the
contesting parties. The following are the orders and proceedings of the
High Court with which, we are concerned in this matter:
“W.P. (M/S) No.2216 of 2017 and W.P. (M/S) No.2208 of 2017
titled Vira Wali Manga Vs. Sarita Rani, S.A. No.190/2019 titled
Lan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.