Supreme Court instructed that Higher Courts Should Not Pass Scathing Remarks Against Lower Court Judges

0
778

“The judgment may be right or wrong, but the Higher Courts should not pass scathing remarks against the presiding officer of the lower courts only because they do not agree with the point of view of the Trial Court.”

The Supreme Court, in an order passed observed that the Higher Courts should not pass scathing remarks against the presiding officer of the lower courts only because they do not agree with their point of view.

The Supreme Court bench, in the appeal filed by Mishra, observed that all the adverse remarks in the judgment made against the judicial officer, whereby his integrity has been questioned or whereby aspersions have been cast on his character, judicial orders or otherwise are bound to be expunged.

The bench observed that such adverse remarks against judicial officers should normally not be passed in judgments. It said:

“We follow a system where the judgment of a Court is subject to judicial scrutiny by Higher Courts. The judgment may be right or wrong, but the Higher Courts should not pass scathing remarks against the presiding officer of the lower courts only because they do not agree with the point of view of the Trial Court.”

It further observed:

The High Court can definitely say that the order passed shows total lack of knowledge of law. But when the High Court went further and virtually castigated the judicial officer as an unworthy and corrupt person then the High Court, in our view, over-stepped its boundaries and such remarks need to be expunged.

The bench then set aside the order imposing costs of Rs.10, 000 on the judicial officer. Normally, costs are not imposed on the presiding officer of the Court and this practice should not be encouraged, it added.