SC Deprecates Practice Of Passing Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officers By HC In Judgments
Supreme Court Deprecates Practice of Passing Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officers by High Courts in Judgments
1. Background
Judicial officers hold a high position of trust and responsibility within the justice delivery system.
The independence and integrity of the judiciary are fundamental for the proper administration of justice.
Occasionally, High Courts have passed adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers (like magistrates, trial court judges) in their judgments.
Such remarks may affect the reputation and morale of judicial officers and could lead to unwarranted public criticism.
The Supreme Court has expressed concern over this practice and has provided guidelines to maintain decorum, dignity, and respect for judicial officers.
2. What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of making adverse remarks or observations against judicial officers in judicial orders or judgments unless absolutely necessary.
Courts should avoid passing personal or harsh comments on the conduct or personality of judicial officers.
When criticism is necessary, it should be:
Constructive and in the interest of justice.
Framed with appropriate judicial language.
Limited to the facts of the case.
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from unnecessary vilification, which could undermine their dignity and independence.
3. Rationale Behind the Supreme Court’s Stand
Judicial officers are public servants performing challenging duties.
Passing harsh remarks publicly may damage their professional reputation irreparably.
There is a proper forum for disciplinary or administrative action if a judicial officer is found wanting, not the courtroom or judgment.
The courts must uphold the dignity of every judicial officer, recognizing their role in the justice system.
The judiciary must present a united and respectful front, maintaining public confidence.
4. Important Observations by the Supreme Court
Adverse remarks should be made only when absolutely necessary and must be based on cogent material.
Courts should consider the impact of such remarks on the morale of judicial officers.
The language of the judgment should be balanced and dignified.
If a judicial officer’s conduct amounts to misconduct, the matter should be referred to the appropriate disciplinary authority.
Public comments should not become a substitute for formal disciplinary proceedings.
5. Relevant Case Law
a. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
The Supreme Court discussed the need to respect the integrity of judicial officers and the importance of judicial decorum.
b. Re: Inappropriate Remarks Against Judges in Judgments, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 921
Court deprecated unnecessary adverse remarks in judgments and reiterated the need to maintain dignity of judicial officers.
c. M.P. High Court Advocates Association v. State of M.P., (2011) 8 SCC 1
Emphasized the independence of judiciary and the importance of protecting judicial officers from unwarranted criticism.
d. In re: Complaint Against a Judge of the High Court of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 1446
Discussed procedures and forums for complaints against judicial officers.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Issue | Passing adverse remarks against judicial officers by High Courts |
| Supreme Court’s Stance | Practice is deprecated; avoid unnecessary, harsh, or personal remarks |
| When Criticism is Allowed | Only when necessary; must be constructive, fact-based, and in judicial language |
| Alternative for Criticism | Use proper disciplinary or administrative forums |
| Rationale | Protect dignity, morale, and independence of judicial officers; maintain judicial decorum |
| Key Case Laws | Union of India v. R. Gandhi; Re: Inappropriate Remarks; M.P. High Court Advocates Assn. v. State |
| Objective | Uphold judiciary's integrity and public confidence |
7. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s direction to avoid passing adverse remarks against judicial officers in judgments serves to preserve the sanctity, dignity, and independence of the judiciary. While accountability is essential, it must be balanced with respect for the office and the individuals who hold it. The courts are urged to exercise caution, use respectful language, and rely on appropriate forums for addressing judicial misconduct.
RELATED Blog
0 comments