TESSTA SETALVAD AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 12-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
TESSTA SETALVAD AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Expunging of certain observations of High Court-Best Bakery case on 
communal carnage-Judgment of trial Court-Challenge to-Appellants/human 
C right activists rendered legal assistance to aggrieved parties-Disposing of 
the appeals, High Court casting aspersion on credibility and bonafides of 
appellants/human rights activists without affording them an opportunity to 
defend-Appeal for deletion of offending remarks-Held: No one should be 
condemned unheard-Judges are not allowed to violate judicial norms and 
ethics to render the decision vulnerable for challenge/criticism-Uncalled for 
D observations on the professional competence of a counsel/any person/authority 
should not be made unless absolutely necessary for deciding the case-Since 
the observations/criticism made by the High Court not relevant to the subject 
matter of dispute, it is expunged from the judgment-Decision confined to 
claims of appellants only-Directions issued. 
E 
Appellants-Advocates, human rights activists, had rendered legal 
assistance to the persons aggrieved by the verdict of trial Court in the 
"Best Bakery case" on alleged communal carnage in the State of Gujarat. 
High Court, while disposing of the appeal in the said matter, cast serious 
aspersions on their credibility and bonafides without even providing them 
F an opportunity to defend. Hence the present appeals for deletion of the 
offending remarks from the judgment of the High Court. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is beyond comprehension as to how the Judges in the 
G High Court could afford to overlook basic and vitally essential tenet of 
"Rule of Law'', that no one should be condemned unheard and risk 
themselves to be criticized for injudicious approach and/or render their 
decisions vulnerable for challenge on account of violating judicial norms 
and ethics. The observations do not prima facie appear to have any 
relevance to the subject matter of dispute before the High Court. Time 
H 
1042 
_, 
• 
.J.. 
A, 
.J 
, \ 
"'. 
·-· 
\ 
TESSTA SETALVAD v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1043 
and again this Court has deprecated the practice of making observations A 
in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and 
criticism were being made were parties to the proceedings and granted 
an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious 
repercussions they may entail on such persons. Apart from that, when 
there is no relevance to the subject matter of adjudication, it is certainly B 
not desirable for the Courts to make any comments or observations 
reflecting on the bonafides or credibility of any person or their actions. 
Judicial decorum requires dispassionate approach, anct the importance of 
issues involved for consideration is no justification to throw to winds basic 
judicial norms on mere personal perceptions as saviours of the situation. 
(1046-F, G, H; 1047-A( C 
1.2. Observations should not be made by Courts against persons and 
authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. 
Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort. 
Uncalled for observations on the professional competence or conduct of a 
counsel, and any person or authority or harsh or disparaging remarks D 
should not be made, unless absolutely required or warranted for deciding 
the case. Even while dealing with recalcitrant subordinate judicial officers, 
this Court has advised restraint. Hence, the observations of the High 
Court, as against the appellants, shall stand expunged and deleted from 
the judgment of the High Court, and consequently must be treated as E 
having never existed or being part of the High Court judgment. The 
decision in this Case is confined to the claim of the appellants only. 
(1047-C, E, F; 1049-B, CJ 
lshwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa, AIR (1963) SC 1728; K.P. Tiwari 
v. State of MP., (1994( Suppl. I SCC 540 and Bra} Kishore Thakur v. Union F 
of India and Ors., (1997] 4 SCC 65, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 443-
445 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2003 of the Gujarat High G 
Court in Crl. A. No. 956/2003 with Crl. M.A. No. 7677, Crl. M.A. No. 9825 
of 2003. 
Kapil Sibal, Mihir Desai, P. Ramesh Kumar and Ms. Apama Bhat for 
t~e Appellants. 
H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A 

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