Case: Awani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Hon.High Court Of Jud.At Allahabad &amp;Ors

to the appellant, by making such remarks and that too behind his back, are not warranted. Here again, after adverting to the earlier decisions and principles enunciated therein, this Court expunged the offending remarks made against the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by him." 7) Apart from the above decision, in an identical circumstance, this Court has expunged adverse remarks made against a judicial officer in Amar Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 491. The appellant therein, a judicial officer, being aggrieved by the comments and observations passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Sunil Solanki vs. State of U.P (Criminal Revision No. 1541 of 2007, order dated 31.05.2007) has preferred an appeal before this Court. In this case, one Sunil Solanki had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the CJM, Bulandshahar with the allegation that on 11.02.2007 at 9.30 p.m. when he was standing outside the front door of his house along with some others, a marriage procession passed from in front of the door of his house and at that juncture, one Mauzzim Ali accosted him and eventually fired at him from his country-made pistol which caused injuries in the abdomen area of Shafeeque, one of his friends. However, he escaped unhurt. Because of the said occurrence, Sunil Solanki endeavoured hard to get the FIR registered at the police station concerned but the entire effort became an exercise in futility as a consequence of which he was compelled to knock at the doors of the learned CJM by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code for issuance of a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. While dealing with the application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the appellant in that appeal, ascribed certain reasons and dismissed the same. 8) Being dissatisfied, the appellant therein preferred a revision before the High Court and the learned Single Judge, taking note of the allegations made in the application, found that it was a fit case where the learned Magistrate should have directed the registration of FIR and investigation into the alleged offences. While recording such a conclusion, the learned single Judge has made certain observations which are reproduced below: “This conduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is deplorable and wholly mala fide and illegal.” Thereafter, the learned single Judge treated the order to be wholly hypothetical and commented it was: “Vexatiously illegal.” After stating so the learned single Judge further stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a blatant error of law. Thereafter, he further commented: “… and has done unpardonable injustice to the injured and the informant. His lack of sensitivity and utter callous attitude has left the accused of murderous assault to go scot-free to this day”. 9) After making the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, he directed as follows: “Let a copy of this order be sent to the Administrative Judge, Bulandshahar to take appropriate action against the CJM concerned as he deems fit.” 10) Aggrieved by the said direction, the appellant therein approached this Court by way of a special leave petition to delete the aforesaid comments, observations and the ultimate direction. 11) After referring all the various earlier decisions of this Court on this point expunged the remarks and set aside the said observation/comments and the direction made against the judicial officer. This Court also directed that if the said remarks have been entered into the annual confidential roll of the judicial officer, the same shall stand expunged and also marked a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad to be placed on the personal file of the judicial officer concerned.12) It is made clear that we are not undermining the ultimate decision of the High Court on merits. However, we are constrained to observe that the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, we are of the view that the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put-forth his reasonings. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. We, once again, reiterate that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof.13) We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the word “severe strictures” is mentioned whereas no logical reasoning has been given as to what is the fault of the appellant and the High Court has not adduced any finding as to why it has disagreed with the reasoning given by the appellant particularly when the appellant asserted that neither he has rendered any decision as trial Court Judge nor as the first Appellate Court Judge except deciding 12 additional issues on the directions issued by his predecessor. The strictures passed against the appellant are neither warranted nor is in conformity with the settled law as propounded by this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11) After referring all the various earlier decisions of this Court on this point expunged the remarks and set aside the said observation/comments and the direction made against the judicial officer. This Court also directed that if the said remarks have been entered into the annual confidential roll of the judicial officer, the same shall stand expunged and also marked a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad to be placed on the personal file of the judicial officer concerned.12) It is made clear that we are not undermining the ultimate decision of the High Court on merits. However, we are constrained to observe that the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, we are of the view that the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put-forth his reasonings. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. We, once again, reiterate that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof.13) We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the wordis mentioned whereas no logical reasoning has been given as to what is the fault of the appellant and the High Court has not adduced any finding as to why it has disagreed with the reasoning given by the appellant particularly when the appellant asserted that neither he has rendered any decision as trial Court Judge nor as the first Appellate Court Judge except deciding 12 additional issues on the directions issued by his predecessor. The strictures passed against the appellant are neither warranted nor is in conformity with the settled law as propounded by this Court.