"Showing Undue Favour To A Party Worst Kind Of Judicial Dishonesty" : Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the disciplinary action taken against a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties.

A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that "showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct".

"A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law", the Court stated in the case Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

 The charge was that the officer named Muzaffar Hussain, while being the Additional District Judge at Agra during 2001 to 2003, had exorbitantly enhanced the compensation in a batch of land acquisition matters in violation of settled principles in order to unduly favour certain subsequent purchasers.

In 2003, the officer took Voluntary Retirement from Service to join the Central Administrative Tribunal as a judicial member. In 2005, the Allahabad High Court initiated disciplinary enquiry against him for misconduct and found the charges to be proved. On the recommendation made by the Full Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh imposed a punishment of curtailment of his pensionary benefits by 90%. The officer filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the punishment. The High Court refused to interfere with the findings but reduced the punishment as curtailment of pensionary benefits by 70%. Challenging the High Court's verdict, the officer approached the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed  that "there was enough evidence and material to show that the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial officer, and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the specific provisions of law, to unduly favour the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands who had no right to claim compensation, and that such orders were actuated by corrupt motive."

Under the circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 235 of the Constitution, the Apex Court added.

It was noted that the appellant had awarded enhanced compensation at an exorbitantly higher rate in favour of the subsequent purchasers/investors, who had no right to receive any compensation, more particularly when Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act specifically prohibited the transfer of mere right to sue. The Court said that appellant decided the cases "in flagrant violation of the cardinal principles of law and equity, and against all judicial norms and propriety, with a view to unduly favour such subsequent purchasers who had no legal right to receive the compensation".

The judgment authored by Justice Bela Trivedi noted :

"In our opinion, showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration. It is often said that "the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water". A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion".

Case Title : Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Head Notes

Judicial Misconduct -Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration. It is often said that "the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water". A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion(Paragraph 15)

 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment