Judges Must Refrain From Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties Unless Absolutely Necessary For Deciding Case: J&K&L High Court

The petitioner being a Deputy Superintendent of Police in J&K Police and investigation officer in two FIRs connected with the case before Special NIA Judge, was aggrieved by the observations made in the impugned order on the issue of framing of charge in those two matters.

In his order, the Trial Court had proceeded to record his observation and dissatisfaction against the manner in which the IO, i.e., the petitioner had conducted the investigation. It had remarked that observed investigation was "perfunctory" and that the petitioner conducted himself in an "unprofessional manner", among other things.

The trial Court had further made personal remarks by casting aspersions on the selection of the Petitioner as a Deputy SP and had remarked that a much better investigation could have been conducted by even a "Head Constable".

The trial court had went even more ahead in its order and directed IGP Jammu that a departmental enquiry should be initiated against the said police officer, where he should be asked that why and under what circumstances he had not collected the real evidence in the said cases and left over the important aspects of the case.

Showing disapproval for such unwarranted observations by the trial court, Justice Mohan Lal observed that the limited controversy before the trial Court was to pass an order regarding the charge/discharge of the accused persons on the strength of the material collected by the investigating agency during investigation.

It was of the view that the petitioner as IO of the case, in his best wisdom, had collected all the material/evidence during the investigation conducted by him and had placed all the relevant evidence before the trial Court in the form of charge sheet. Hence, it was the duty of the Trial Court to evaluate/assess the entire evidence on the record and to prima-facie come to conclusion whether accused persons can be prima-facie charged/discharged for commission of offences indicted against them in the charge sheet. It was not at all necessary for the trial Court to have passed/recorded such harsh/disparaging remarks against the petitioner (being I/O of the case) in its order and this too when the trial court had not even afforded opportunity of explaining or defending the petitioner himself, the bench noted.

The bench also found it worthwhile to record the observations of Supreme Court in A.M. Mathur, Appellant V/s Pramod Kumar Gupta, wherein Supreme court had observed,

"Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses".

Allowing the petition and expunging the derogatory remarks against the petitioner, the bench called upon the courts below to observe sobriety, moderation and reserve as the duty of restraint is humility of function and should be a constant theme of our Judges.

Higher the forum and greater the powers, the greater is the need for restraint and the more mellowed the reproach should be, the bench underscored.

Case Title : Sunny Gupta v Union Territory of J&K and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 56