Disparaging remarks against the conduct of a person is inconsistent with judicial behaviour: Supreme Court of India

1. Leave granted. The appellant is a practicing lawyer before the High Bar. The present appeal is limited to expunging certain observations 2017 titled Vira Wali Manga Vs. Sarita Rani S.A No.190 2019 titled Landour Community Hospital Vs Sandeep Bishnoi. S.A. No. 182 of 2019 titled Vinod Kumar Vs. Mandir Laxmi W.P. No. 519 of 2019 the case reflects that the Counsel for the Appellant has circulated a by the High Court in the concerned cases and the Appellant is not 3. Representing the appellant Mr. Mukul Rohatgi the learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellant is regularly practicing in the submits that the remarks observations made by the learned Judge against the Appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him before recording the adverse comments. It is also submitted that those recordings are neither According to Mr. Rohatgi such adverse comments will not only 4. The learned amicus curiae Mr. Amar Dave together with the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi have drawn specific attention of this Court to the following remarks in the High Court’s I express my deep anguish and hesitantly refraining myself from taking any action against the counsel for the petitioner for producing only part of document and placing reliance on the same for procuring an interim order by suppressing material 17. The counsel for the petitioner is a seasonal advocate he owes a responsibility towards the institution and fraternity too he had deliberately 5. Similarly in the second case i.e. S.A. No.190 2019 the learned too be addressed for quite some time this Court is of litigants whose matters were pending consideration that as if it was not an argument for the case but In the third judgement i.e. S.A. 1819 dated 12.03.2020 the the present Second Appeal before this Court the Goel v. Sri Sushi Chandra Sabbarwal & Another since I had appeared as a counsel on behalf of the In the fourth case W.P.(M S) 5119 the Court on 22.02.2021 2. Though this Court should have avoided to make this remark but owning to the deliberate and intentional modus operandi which is normally adopted which has now become a regular feature almost in most of the cases which are filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is constraint to make certain observations which has Counsel basically intended so as to mislead the Court or to avoid an adjudication of the case on stage itself by putting uncalled for documents which are not even relevant including the copy of the citation judgments on which he wants to rely as part of the records of the Writ Petition making the records of the Writ Petition running into several volumes and that too in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is a tactics which has been adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing voluminous records in the Writ Petition including the copies of precedent judgments on which the reliance has which in the instant case happens to be about 20 judgments which the petitioner s counsel contends to rely on in support of his case as against the proceedings which were held under Section 21(1)(a recorded hereinafter it could be apparently inferred that even most of the judgments on which reliance 4. This attitude adopted cannot be ruled out to be a professional and a strategic device which is being admission of writ due to paucity of time would be constraint to admit even the Writ Petitions which are arising from concurrent judgments in a summary being taxing on the litigant also to meet the not an isolated example but rather it is a regular feature which had been adopted by the Counsel as a routine in most of the cases which are being instituted from his Chamber. This methodology is judgment is put to challenge before a superior platform he may have his argument protected that the judgment relied by him and which were on record before the Court were not considered by the Court and thus the judgment is a consequence of 2 3 and 4 of the judgment the modus operandi of the present case and this Court has already consciously observed that the intention behind making reference to the judgement was to mislead the Court and to buy time in prolonging the proceedings in order to overcome the effect of dismissal of the concurrent Writ Petitions in limine by placing voluminous judgements on records and 8. The Appellant contends that the above referred comments in the the observations could not have been recorded without putting the earned reputation has been tarnished. To project that such remarks were unmerited Mr. Rohatgi points out that the Appellant with an otherwise unblemished professional record had no occasion to suffer the concerned Presiding Judge before his elevation on 19.05.2017 to were rival counsel in several contested matters Mr. Rohatgi submits that the comments may have emanated from personal prejudice and may not be otherwise warranted. Accordingly it is argued that the Appellant should not be made to suffer adverse comments on his conduct as a lawyer only because the concerned Judge may not counsel are unmerited and do not meet the required parameters the a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that 10. In Alok Kumar Roy Vs. Dr. S.N. Sarma2 in the opinion written by Justice C.K.Wanchoo for a Five Judges Bench this Court had emphasized that even in cases of justified criticism the language disapprove of the conduct of the Counsel would not be an act of 1 AIR 1964 SC 703 21 SCR 813 11.The judgement of this Court in A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta3 delivered by Justice K Jagannatha Shetty elaborates on the need to avoid even the appearance of bitterness. The Court observed should be constant theme of our judges. This judges to command respect as to protect the per established norms of judicial propriety has also been succinctly “Use of intemperate language or making the requirement for deciding the case is in judicial orders are for permanent record which make it even more necessary to practice self­ 32 SCC 533 4 1995 SuppSCC 169 The principles laid down as above have been quoted with Another5. In this case Justice C.K. Thakker writing for the Court of the Four Judges Bench in Mohammed Naimon recording of adverse remarks has been approved in a catena of decisions since 1964. It was also cited by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in A.N that the judge’s comments against the petitioner in that case were While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid 56 SCC 767 6 1982 SCC SL SC 20 were unnecessary for deciding the disputes. Moreover they appear to be based on the personal perception of the learned Judge. It is also comments give any opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his explanation. The remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on the professional integrity of the appellant. Such condemnation of the 17. The tenor of the remarks recorded against the appellant will not only demean him amongst his professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career. If the comments remain unexpunged in the court judgments it will be a cross that the Appellant will have to bear all his life. To allow him to suffer thus the offending remarks recorded by the learned judge against the The appellant whose professional conduct was questioned was not paragraphs 4 5 6 and 7 of this judgement. The appeals are accordingly

Summary: Use of intemperate language or making disparaging remarks against anyone, unless that be the requirement for deciding the case, is inconsistent with judicial behaviors. Written words in judicial orders are for permanent record which make it even more necessary to practice self-restraint in exercise of judicial power while making written orders. This was held by Hon’ble Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors. Etc. [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4555 ­ 4559 OF 2021] on the 02nd of august, 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are, the appellant is a practicing lawyer, before the High Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing as member of the Bar. The present appeal is limited to expunging certain observations made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court while deciding four cases in which the appellant was representing one of the contesting parties. The Office Report in the case reflects that the Counsel for the Appellant has circulated a letter dated 13.07.2021 stating therein that the Petition has been filed only for expunging certain observations recorded against the Appellant by the High Court in the concerned cases and the Appellant is not seeking any relief against any of the arrayed Respondents and as such they be treated as Proforma Respondents. the remarks/observations made by the learned Judge against the Appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him, before recording the adverse comments. those recordings are neither essential nor necessary for the Court’s verdict in the concerned cases. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, the comments in the judicial orders of the High Court against the Counsel’s conduct were not needed for adjudication of the matters under consideration. In any case, the observations could not have been recorded without putting the counsel on notice about the intention of the Court. It is also submitted that by virtue of the remarks recorded against the Appellant, his hard­ earned reputation has been tarnished. It was also submitted that since the presiding judge and the appellant were rival counsels on several occasions, the comments may have emanated from personal prejudice and may not be otherwise warranted. Accordingly, it is argued that the Appellant should not be made to suffer adverse comments on his conduct as a lawyer only because the concerned Judge may not appreciate the efforts made. The court heard the submissions of both the parties and observed that even in cases of justified criticism, the language employed must be of utmost restraint. The use of carping language to disapprove of the conduct of the Counsel would not be an act of sobriety, moderation or restraint. The court also relied on the judgement in the case of A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533, wherein it was held that, “The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is respect by the judiciary…”.