Caution and restraint while passing adverse remarks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl,) No. 6572 of 2022)
SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHESH PS & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) NO. 6253 of 2022)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHESH P.S. & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) NO. 6573 of 2022)
J. MANJUNATH ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
1
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
...
15. In the case of Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar1
, this Court, while
examining certain remarks made by a High Court stated that the courts, while
passing adverse remarks, must be extremely careful and must resort to
passing such remarks only if it is necessary to come to fair conclusion in
order to meet the ends of justice. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment
is being extracted herein:
“In expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be
guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint, (…)
the judges should not normally depart from sobriety,
moderation and reserve and harsh or disparaging remarks are
not to be made against the parties or authorities unless it is
really necessary for the decision of the case as
integral part thereof”
16. In the case of State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal2
, wherein this court was
examining certain disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the
State officials held that judges, must refrain from passing adverse remarks, as
the same can cause great mischief and might become an antithesis to the ends
of achieving justice. The relevant observations from the aforesaid judgment is
being reproduced herein:
“We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use strong
and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or
their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and
restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are
not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by
them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if
1 (1986) 2 SCC 569
2 (1986) 4 SCC 566
7
so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in
injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and
strictures passed by B.M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and
unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.
17. Further, In the case of Election Commission of India v. M.R.
Vijaybhaskar3
, while examining certain adverse remarks made by the High
Court, held that judges must exercise extreme caution while passing remarks
in court that may susceptible to misinterpretation. The relevant paragraph of
the judgment is being produced hereunder:
“Having said that, we must emphasise the need for Judges to
exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may
be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench
and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety.
Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which
is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a
window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of
its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a
protector of human dignity. The power of judicial review is
entrusted to the High Courts under the Constitution. So high is its
pedestal that it constitutes a part of the basic features of the
Constitution. Yet responsibility bears a direct co-relationship with
the nature and dimensions of the entrustment of power. A degree
of caution and circumspection by the High Court would have
allayed a grievance of the nature that has been urged in the
present case. All that needs to be clarified is that the oral
observations during the course of the hearing have passed with
the moment and do not constitute a part of the record. The EC
has a track record of being an independent constitutional body
which shoulders a significant burden in ensuring the sanctity of
3 (2021) 9 SCC 770
8
electoral democracy. We hope the matter can rest with a sense of
balance which we have attempted to bring.”
18. In light of the aforesaid decisions, as far as the Appellant No.2 is
concerned, the remarks made by the High Court against him seem to be
unreasonable and without justification. The Appellant No.2 is merely a
government employee of the department that is conducting the investigation
and has no personal involvement with the case. The Appellant No. 2 is not an
accused and has nothing to do with the transaction of the crime, let alone the
bail proceedings. No evidence against him has been analyzed by the court
and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself, however,
scathing and egregious remarks have still been passed against him. In such a
scenario, we find the remarks passed by the High Court to be unfair and not
in the interest of justice.
...
26. The legal system in general, and the judicial system in particular, has ushered into a new age of accessibility and transparency due to the adoption of virtual hearings and live telecasting of open court proceedings. These 13 changes in the judiciary have ensured that the courts as redressal mechanisms have become more accessible to the common man than ever before. The limitations of physical infrastructure, that has constrained the courts to a physical location, has often been cited as one of the main roadblocks in the path towards access to justice. This roadblock, however, has now been cleared due to the availability of technology and the adoption of the same. This never before seen transparency in the judicial system, while it brings with it great benefits, it also attaches with it a stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court proceedings. Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have ramifications that are far reaching, and as can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the reputation of the parties involved. In such a circumstance, it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.