[2014] 1 S.C.R. 939

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA

KANWAR BHAN AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 1785 of 2014)

JANUARY 31, 2014

[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Art. 21 - Reputation of a person is a noble asset - When it is hurt, man is half dead

- It is vety dear to life and deserves protection u/Art. 21 - In C courts, it must be safely guarded - When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to - A person who is not a party in a case, his conduct cannot be commented upon - If he asks for D expunction of remarks, same should not be denied.

PARTY: Non-impleadment - Disparaging remarks against a person not party in a case - Held: When a person is not a party in a case and it is not necessaty to decide his E conduct in that case then no adverse remark should be made against him - In the instant case, the appellant was CM of the State of Hatyana - On the basis of complaint from a person in crowd in public meeting, he suspended first respondent fr?m service_- In a_writ petition by first respondent challenging, F his suspension, High Court dropped the charges and further, , criticized the action of the appellant and held that there has been arbitraty exercise of power which was amenable to judicial review - The writ petition could have been decided without making series of comments on the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief Minister - The observations G made by High Court were really not necessaty as an integral part for the decision of the case - Therefore, adverse remarks are expunged - Doctrine of audi alteram partem.

939 H

A JUDGES: Role of Judges and judicial approach - Held: Judges must not unduly criticize conduct of parties and others

- Tf1ey should not be guided by any kind of notion - They must realize that they are not infallible and their unjust criticism may do harm - Judges must show judicial restraint - They B must not do anything which blindens thinking process - They must show humility and chastity of thought which are bed rock of a Civilized Society - Judicial restraint.

JUDGMENT/ORDER: Reasoned judgment - Held: A judgment may have rhetoric but the said rhetoric has to be C dressed with reason and must be in accordance with the legal principles, otherwise a mere rhetoric in a judgment, may likely to cause prejudice to a person and courts are not expected to give any kind of prejudicial remarks against a person, especially so, when he is not a party before it.

D The first respondent was State Government employee. The appellant was Chief Minister of Haryana.

He was attending a function on 4.2.2001 when he received some complaint against the first respondent E from the crowd. On the basis of complaint, the appellant

placed the first respondent under suspension. In due course, the first respondent was suspended. He questioned it by writ petition. A single judge of the High Court allowed it and also criticized the action of the F appellant by which he ordered suspension. Aggrieved, the appellant filed LPA on the ground that the adverse remarks were not at all necessary to adjudicate upon tlie issue involved in the matter and further when he was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition recording of such G observations was totally impermissible as it fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice.

The Division Bench of the High Court rejected his plea.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court H

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 941

HELD: 1. Reputation is fundamentally a glorious A amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him fo bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the B pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is halfdead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be c allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. The memory of nobility no one would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is -dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the 0 Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than popularity. When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to. The advertence has to be sans E emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said. [para 1] [945-G-H; 946-A-D]

2. On the principle of natural justice, the disparaging F remarks and directions deserve to be annulled. From the order of the Division Bench, it is clear that the appellant was not before the single judge, and (ii) by no stretch of

logic the observations and the directions were required to decide the lis. The single Judge had opined that the G order of suspension was unjustified and that is why it was revoked. He had also ruled that there has been arbitrary exercise of power which was amenable to judicial review and, more so, when the charges were dropped against the employee. The conclusion could H

A have been arrived at without making series of comments on the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief Minister of the State. The observations made by single judge were really not necessary as an integral part for the decision of the case as stated in *Mohammad l\!aim's B case. Once the observations are not justified, as a natural

corollary, the directions have to be treated as sensitively susceptible. [Paras 12, 13, 15) [950-F; 951-E-G; 952-A-B;

953-F-G]

*State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 C SC 703: 1964 SCR 363; State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.

Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154: 1998 (2) SCR 693; State of Pun1ab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570: 1995 (1) SCR 695; The State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Bani Singh and another JT 1990 (2) SC 54; P. V. Mahadevan D

v. MD. TN. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 474; State of MP. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566: 1987 (1) SCR 1; A. M Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 533: 1990 (2) SCR 11 O; Amar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr: (2012) 6 SCC E 491: 2012 (5) SCR 1154 - relied on.

State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, /AS and Anr. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222: 1991 (2) SCR 1 ; Testa Setalvad and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 88: 2004 F

(3) SCR 1042; State of WB. and Ors. v. Babu Chakrabotthy

(2004) 12 sec 201: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 17; Dr. Difip Kumar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr. (1996) 6 SCC 234: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 763; Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Mid ha (1972) 1 sec 181: 1972 (2) SCR 409; R.K.

Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466: 1976 (1) G SCR 204; Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar(1986) 2 SCC

569: 1986 (2) SCR 470 - referred to.

3. A Judge is not to be guided by any kind of notion.

The decision making process expects a Judge or an H adjudicator to apply restraint, ostracise perceptual

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 943

subjectivity, make one's emotions subservient to one's A reasoning and think dispassionately. He is expected to be guided by the established norms of judicial process and de_corum. A judgment may have rhetorics but the said rhetoric has to be dressed with reason and must be in accord with the legal principles. Otherwise a mere B rhetoric, especially in a judgment, may likely to cause prejudice to a person and courts are not expected to give any kind of prejudicial remarks against a person, especially so, when he is not a party before it. In that context, the rhetoric becomes sans reason, and without c root. It is likely to blinden the thinking process. A Judge is required to remember that humility and respect for temperance and chastity of thought are at the bedrock of apposite expression. Thus, a Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he 0 has a singular master "duty to truth" and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal parameters. No heroism, no rehtorics. [Para 19, 21] [955-A-E; 956-B]

4. Another facet gaining significance and is adverted to is when caustic observations are made which are not E necessary as an integral part of adjudication it affects the person's reputation - a cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Disparaging remarks, as recorded by the single Judge, were not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an F integral part and further that could not have been done when the appellant was not a party before the court and also he was never afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct, and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench on the foundation that it has not caused any G prejudice and he can fully defend himself when a subsequent litigation is instituted, are legally

unacceptable. Accordingly, the extracted remarks and also any remarks which have been made that are likely H

A to affect the reputation of the appellant are expunged. [paras 22, 28] [956-B-C; 958-C-F]

Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.

(2013) 10 SCC 591; Ki ran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and B Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 494: 1989 (1) SCR 20; Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288: 2012 (7) SCR 607; Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 1: 2012 (8) SCR 651; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Di/ipkumar C Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Ors. (1983) 1SCC124: 1983

(1) SCR 828; State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 587: 2007 (1) SCR 87 - Relied on.

D. F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 : 55 ALR D 171 (1927) - referred to.

Case Law Reference:

1991 (2) SCR 1 Referred to Para 8 E

2004 (3) SCR 1042 Referred to Para 9

2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 17 Referred to Para 10

1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 763 Referred to Para 11

1964 SCR 363 Relied on Para 11

1972 (2) SCR 409 Referred to Para 11

1976 (1) SCR 204 Referred to Para 11

1986 (2) SCR 470 Referred to Para 11

1998 (2) SCR 693 Relied on Para 13

1995 (1) SCR 695 Relied on Para 13

JT 1990 (2) SC 54 Relied on Para 13

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 945

2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 Relied on Para 13 A

1987 (1) SCR 1 Relied on Para 16

1990 (2) SCR 110 Relied on Para 17

2012 (5) SCR 1154 Relied on Para 18 B

(2013) 1 o sec 591 Relied on Para 22 -,

1989 (1) SCR 20 Relied on Para 23

2012 (7) SCR 607 Relied on Para 24 c

2012 (8) SCR 651 Relied on Para 25

1983 (1) SCR 828 Relied on Para 26

2007 (1) SCR 87 Relied on Para 27

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. : D

1785 of 2014.

From the Judgment, order dated 19.01.2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12384 of 2008, LPA No. 1456 of 2009.

P.P. Rao and Neeraj Kr. Jain, Aditya Kr. Chaudhary, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Appellant.

Hitesh Malik, AAG, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mridula Ray F Bhardwaj for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DIPAK MISRA, J. Leave granted.

1. Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and G

unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that _matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both H

A horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. The memory of nobility no one B would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied.

It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life.

And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than c popularity. When a court deals with a matter that has something

likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to. The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi

0 alteram partem before anything adverse is said.

2. We have commenced with aforesaid prefatory note because the centripodal question that has eminently emanated for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of E the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12384 of 2008 commenting on the conduct of the appellant and further directing recovery of interest component awarded to the employee, the first respondent herein, from the present appellant and also to realize the cost and seek compensation F in appropriate legal forum, including civil court, though the

appellant was not arrayed as a party to the writ petition, and denial of expunction of the aforesaid observations and directions by the Division Bench in LP.A. No. 1456 of 2009 on the foundation that the same are based on the material G available on record and, in any case, grant of liberty to claim

compensation or interest could not be held to be a stricture causing prejudice to the appellant who would have full opportunity of defending himself in any proceeding which may be brought by the respondent for damages or recovery of H interest, is legally defensible or bound to founder on the ground

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 947

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

that the appellant was not impleaded as a respondent to the A proceeding. Be it noted, the Division Bench has also opined that the observations made by the learned single Judge are not conclusive and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, the then Chief Minister of the State of Haryana.

3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are to B

be exposited are that the first respondent was working as Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the State of Haryana. On 4.2.2001 during a state function "Sarkar Apke Dwar" at Jagadhari constituency the appellant received a complaint from some person in the public, including the elected C representative, about the working of the respondent No.1. The appellant after considering the verbal complaint announced the suspension of the first respondent during the press conference on the same day. On 06.02.2001 the first respondent was - placed under suspension by the letter of the Financial D Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh which was followed by charge sheet dated 27.03.2002. The first respondent filed CWP No. 16025 of 2001 against the suspension order which was disposed of on 20.03.2002 with direction to the Government. On 28.03.2002 . E the 1st respondent was reinstated pending inquiry. After issuance of charge sheet and revocation of the suspension order, the first respondent submitted his reply on 5.6.2002.

4. As the facts would undrape, nothing happened thereafter and he stood superannuated on 31.01.2005 and was granted provisional pension, provident fund and amount of Group Insurance Claim but pension as due and other retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of other leaves,

etc. were withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

G On 6.2.2007 the first respondent filed CWP No. 2243 of 2007 which. was disposed of by the High Court directing the government to complete the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time, the H

A employee preferred CWP No. 12384 of 2008. The learned

single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2009 allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge-sheet and the punishment with further directions to release all the pension and pensionary benefits due to the first respondent within a B period of one month with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the due date to the date of payment. In course of judgment the learned single Judge made certain observations against the appellant herein.

5. Grieved by the observations and inclusive directions C made in the judgment the appellant preferred LPA No. 1456 of 2009. The contentions raised by the appellant in the intracourt appeal that the adverse remarks were not at all necessary to adjudicate upon the issue involved in the matter, and further when he was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition D recording of such observations was totally impermissible, as it fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice, were not accepted by the Division Bench as a consequence of which the appeal did not meet with success.

6. We have heard Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Hitesh Malik, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. Despite service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the private respondent, that is, respondent No. 1.

7. As has been indicated earlier, the appellant was not a party to the proceeding. It is manifest that the !earned single Judge has made certain disparaging remarks against the appellant and, in fact, he has been also visited with certain , adverse consequences. Submission ofMr. P.P. Rao, learned G senior counsel, is that the observations and the directions are

wholly unsustainable when the appellant was not impleaded as a party to the proceeding and further they are totally

unwarranted for the adjudication of the controversy that travelled to the Court.

. OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 949

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

8. In State of Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, /AS and A another1, this Court has laid down that the person against whom mala tides or bias is imputed should be impleaded as a party respondent to the proceeding and be given an opportunity to meet the allegations. In his absence no enquiry into the allegations should be made, for such an enquiry would B tantamount to violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without affording an opportunity of hearing.

9. In Testa Setalvad and another v. State of Gujarat and others2 the High Court had made certain caustic observations casting serious aspersions on the appellants therein, though they were not parties before the High Court. Verifying the record that the appellants therein were not parties before the High Court, this Court observed: -

"It is beyond comprehension as to how the learned Judges in the High Court could afford to overlook such a basic and vitally essential tenet of the "rule of law", that no one should

c /

be condemned unheard, and risk themselves to be criticized for injudicious approach and/or render their E decisions vulnerable for challenge on account of violating judicial norms and ethics."

And again: -

"Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice F of making observations in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings, and further were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on G such persons."

1. 1992 Supp (1) sec 222.

2.: c2004) 1 o sec 88.

10. In State of WB. and others v. Babu Chakraborthy3 the

principle was reiterated by stating that the High Court was not justified and correct in passing observations and strictures

against the appellants 2 and 3 therein without affording an opportunity of being heard.

11 . In Dr. Di lip Kumar Deka and another v. State of Assam and another4, after referring to the authorities in State

of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim5, Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha 6, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan' and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar8, this Court opined thus:-

"7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to1he appeliants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principie of natural justice."

12. At this juncture, it may be clearly stated that singularly on the basis of the aforesaid principle the disparaging remarks and directions, which are going to be referred to hereinafter, F deserve to be annulled but we also think it seemly to advert to the facet whether the remarks were really necessary to render the decision by the learned single Judge and the finding

(2004) 12 sec 201.

G 4.

(1996) 6 sec 234.

AIR 1964 SC 703.

(1972) 1 sec 181.

(1975) 2 sec 466.

H 8.

(1986) 2 sec 569.

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 951

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

recorded by the Division Bench that the observations are ba_sed A on the material on record and they do not cause any prejudice, are legally sustainabl~. As far as finding of the Division Bench is concerned that they are based on materials brought on record is absolutely unjustified in view of the following principles laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra): - B

"It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is C relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying lhe remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision 0 of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct."

13. On a perusal of the order we find that two aspects are clear, namely, (i) that the appellant was not before the court, and

(ii) by no stretch of logic the observations and the directions E were required to decide the lis. We are disposed to think so as we fi.nd that the learned single Judge has opined that the order of suspension was unjustified and that is why it was revoked. He has also ruled that there has been arbitrary exercise of power which was amenable to judicial review and, F more so, when the charges were dropped against the employee. Commenting on the second charge-sheet dated 15.3.2004 the learned single Judge, referring to the decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan9, State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goya/10, The State of G Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another11 and P. V.

(1988) 4 sec 154.

10. (1995) 2 sec 570.

11. JT 1990 (2) SC 54.

A Mahadevan v. M.D. T.N. Housing Board12, thought it appropriate to quash the same on the ground of delay. The conclusion could have been arrived at without making series of comments on the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief Minister of the State.

14. At this juncture, we think it apt to point out some of the observations made against the appellant: -

"Arrogance of power by the Chief Minister seems to be at play in this case"

xxx xxx xxx

"The petitioner is also justified in making a grievance that first the Chief Minister had suspended him on the basis of a loose talk in the press conference and thereafter the officials of the Government have attempted to justify their ' own mistakes on the one pretext or the other. The petitioner would term this case to be "a proof of worst ugly look of

Indian democracy". He may be an aggrieved person but his anger is justified to refer this treatment to be an ugly face of democracy. Is not it dictatorial display of power in democratic set up? Final order is yet to be passed regarding this charge sheet. It is orally pointed out that the charge sheet is finalized on 16.9.2009. It is done without holding any enquiry or associating the petitioner in any manner. How can this be sustained in this background?"

xxx xxx xxx

"Chief Minister was bound to inform himself of the well known maxim "be you ever so high, the law is above you".

xxx xxx xxx

"The respondents, thus, have made themselves fully

12. (2005) 6 sec 636.

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 953

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

responsible for this plight of the petitioner on account of A the illegalities that have been pointed out and which the respondents have failed to justify in any cogent or reasonable manner. They all are to be held accountable for this. This would include even the then Chief Minister, who initiated this illegal process and did not intervene to B correct the illegality ever thereafter."

xxxxxx )()()(

"The interest awardable shall be recovered from all the officers and including the Chief Minister, who were either C responsible for placing the petitioner under suspension or in perpetuating the illegality and had unnecessarily charged and harassed the petitioner."

xxxxxx )()()(

"Liberty is, therefore, given to the petitioner to seek compensation for the harassment caused to him by approaching any appropriate Forum, including Civil Court, where he can seek this compensation even from the then Chief Minister."

15. On a studied scrutiny of the judgment in entirety we have no hesitation in holding that the observations made by the learned single Judge were really not necessary as an integral part for the decision of the case as stated in Mohammad Naim's case. Needless to say, once the observations are not justified, as a natural corollary, the directions have to be treated as sensitively susceptible.

16. In this context, it is necessary to state about the role of a Judge and the judicial approach. In State of M.P. v.

Nandlal Jaiswa/ 13, Bhagwati, CJ, speaking for the court expressed strong disapproval of the strictures made by the

13. (1986) 4 sec 566.

A learned .Judge in these terms. -

"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 so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice."

17. In A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and others14

the Court observed that judicial restraint and discipline are necessary to the orderly administration of justice. The duty of restraint and the humility of function has to be the constant theme for a Judge, for the said quality in decision making is D as much necessary for Judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Further proceeding the two-Judge Bench stated thus: -

"Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other coordinate branches of the State, the executive and the

legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process."

18. In Amar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another15, it has been emphasized that intemperate language should be avoided in the judgments and while penning down G the same the control over the language should not be forgotten and a committed comprehensive endeavour has to be made to put the concept to practice so that as a conception it gets

14. (1990) 2 sec 533.

H 15. (2012) 6 sec 491.

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

concretized and fructified.

19. It needs no special emphasis to state that a Judge is

not to be guided by any kind of notion. The decision making process expects a Judge or an adjudicator to apply restraint, ostracise perceptual subjectivity, make one's emotions 8 subservient to one's reasoning and think dispassionately. He is expected to be guided by the established norms of judicial process and decorum. A judgment may have rhetorics but the said rhetoric has to be dressed with reason and must be in accord with the legal principles. Otherwise a mere rhetoric, C especially in a judgment, may likely to cause prejudice to a person and courts are not expected to give any kind of prejudicial remarks against a person, especially so, when he is not a party before it. In that context, the rhetoric becomes sans reason, and without root. It is likely to blinden the thinking process. A Judge is required to remember that humility and . D respect for temperance and chastity of thought are at the bedrock of apposite expression. In this regard, we may profitably refer to a passage from Frankfurter, Felix, in Clark, Tom C., 16:

"For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law of which we are all guardians - those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized .community, and not the

victims of personal rule," F

20. The said learned Judge had said: -

"What becomes decisive to a Justice's functioning on the Court in the large area within which his individuality moves is his general attitude towards law, the habits of mind that G he has formed or is capable of unforming, his capacity for detachment, his temperament or training for putting his

16. Mr. Justice Frankfurter: 'A Heritage for all who Love the Law,' 51 A.BAJ.

330, 332 (1965).

A passion behind his judgment instead of in front of it. 17"

21. Thus, a Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he has a singular master "duty to truth" and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal

8 parameters. No heroism, no rehtorics.

22. Another facet gaining significance and deserves to be adverted to, when caustic observations are made which are not necessary as an integral part of adjudication and it affects the person's reputation - a cherished right under Article 21 of the C Constitution. In Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another18 this Court has observed: -

"Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.

Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. The International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others."

23. In Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another19

this Court reproduced the following observations from the decision in O.F. Marion v. Davis2°:

"25 .... 'The right to the enjoyment of a private reputation,

unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an

17. FRANKURTER, Felix, Foreword, to Memorial issue for Robert H. Jackson, 55 Columbia Law Review (April, 1955) p.436.

1 s. (2013) 10 sec 591.

19. (1989) 1 sec 494.

20. 217 Ala 16: 114 So 357: 55 ALR 171 (1927).

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA v. KANWAR BHAN 957

[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

element of personal security, aod is protected by the A Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property."

24. In Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawa/21, although in a different context, while dealing with the aspect of B reputation, this Court has observed that reputation is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity."

25. In Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others22 this Court has ruled that the reverence of life is insegregably associated with the dignity of a human being who

is basically divine, not servile. A human personality is endowed with potential infinity and it blossoms when dignity is sustained.

D The sustenance of such dignity has to be the superlative concern of every sensitive soul. The essence of dignity can never be treated as a momentary spark of light or, for that matter, "a brief candle", or "a hollow bubble". The spark of life gets more resplendent when man is treated with dignity sans E humiliation, for every man is expected to lead an honourable life which is a splendid gift of "creative intelligence". When a dent is created in the reputation, humanism is paralysed.

26. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v.

Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others23, while dealing with the value of reputation, a two-Judge Bench expressed thus: -

"The expression 'life' has a much wider meaning. Where

. therefore the outcome of a departmental enquiry is likely G to adversely affect reputation or livelihood of a person,

21. (2012) 7 sec 288.

22. (2012) 8 sec 1.

23. (1983) 1 sec 124.

A some of the finer graces of human civilization which make life worth living would be jeopardized and the same can be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair procedures. In this context one can recall the famous words

of Chapter II of Bhagwad-Gita :

Sambhavitasya Cha Kirti Marnadati Richyate"

27. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and others24.

28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that disparaging remarks, as recorded by the learned single Judge, are not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an integral part and D further that could not have been done when the appellant was not a party before the court and also he was never afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct, and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench on the foundation that it has not caused any prejudice and he can fully defend himself when a E subsequent litigation is instituted, are legally unacceptable.

Accordingly, we expunge the extracted remarks hereinbefore and also any remarks which have been made that are likely to affect the reputation of the appellant. Since, the appeal is confined only to expunging of adverse remarks, the same is F allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.

24. (2007) 3 sec 587.