LexV.K. JAIN versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH R.G. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 907
,,
V.K. JAIN
A
v.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH R.G. AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2004)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008*
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
~
Judiciary - Judicial officer - Strictures and remarks
against judicial officer - Expunging of remarks - Held:
'
Criticism by superior courts must be in a language of utmost c
restraint - Judicial decorum to be maintained at all times and
even where criticism is justified - Duty and obligation of
superior courts to ensure judicial discipline - Principles of law
laid down in the light of decisions made over several decades
- On facts, remarks expunged - Judicial restraint - Judicial D
~.
discipline/decorum - Administrative Law - Principles of
Natural Justice.
Appellant was a judicial officer. Certain observations
were made by High Court in the impugned order, E
whereby he was projected as an incompetent judicial
officer who had no knowledge of basic laws and
jurisprudence and who had no regard for the fundamental
rights of the citizens. According to the impugned order,
,,. .
the appellant was administering justice in the medieval
F
way and in an arbitrary manner.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that
High Court was not justified in passing totally unmerited
and undeserved strictures and remarks against him and
prayed for expunging the remarks so made.
G
~
-'
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Received for reporting, on 1.9.2009.
907
H
908
SUPREME COURT REFORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1. It is the duty and obligation of the higher
courts to modify or set aside orders which are contrary
to law or the facts of the case. This is one of the most
important functions of the superior courts. Indian legal
system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and
B provides for appeals and r11visions. Judges of the
superior courts while dischargina their duty ought to be
extremely careful before passing imputations, strictures
and remarks against subordinate judicial officers. There
was no justification in passing any imputations, remarks
'{
c or strictures against the appellant. Even if it is assumed
,.
that the order passed by the appellant was wrong or
erroneous, even then the High Court ought to have either
modified or set aside the order, ~ut the High Cou·rt was
not justified in passing totally unmerited, derogatory,
D harsh and castigating remarks against the appellant.
[Paras 41 and 49] [944-A-C; 948-C-E]
.~
Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr.
(2000) 6 SCC 359; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
v. Amrit Lal Bhogi Lal and Co. AIR (1958) SC 868; Gojt·r
E
Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 2 SCC 453;
-
Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 539; Braj
Kishore Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 65;
Panchanan Banerji v. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji (1926) I.LR.
49 All 254; H. Daly AIR (1928) Lah 740; State v. Mikanth
F
Shripad AIR (1954) Born. 65; L. Banwanri Lal v. Kundan
'
Cloth Mills Ltd. AIR (1937) Lahore 527; Dr. Raghubir Saran
v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR (1964) 1; Anjani K. Venna v.
State of Bihar and Anr. (2004) 11 SCC 188; A.M. Mathur v.
Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 1737;
G Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar and Anr. AIR (1986)
SC 819; Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar and Anr. (2005) 6
SCC 767; /shwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa (1963) 3
SCR 722; State of M.P. And Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors.
(1986) 4 SCC 566; K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1994) Supp.
H 1 SCC 540; In re: 'K' A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54;
V.K. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH R.G. 909
AND ORS.
Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Anr.
(2007) 4 sec 247, referred to.
•
A
2.1. The following principles of law are laid down in
the light of decisions spreading over a century. Erosion
of credibility of judiciary in the public mind, for whatever
B
reason, is the greatest threat to the independence of
judiciary. Judicial discipline and restraint are imperative
for the orderly administration of justice. Judicial decorum
)
makes it imperative that the judgments and orders must
be confined to the facts and the legal position involved c
in the cases and the courts should not deviate from
propriety, moderation and sobriety. [Para 50] [948-E-H;
949-A]
2.2. Majesty of Court is not displayed solely in
cracking the whip on mistakes, inadvertent errors of D
,,
lapses, but by persuasive reasoniExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.