Supreme Court Disapproves Uttarakhand HC Judge's Proclivity In Making Unjustified Remarks Against Advocates

The Supreme Court recently set aside two orders of the Uttarakhand High Court that contained adverse remarks made by a High Court judge against an advocate.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the comments made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the HC regarding the advocate's conduct were unjustified and illegal.

“We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of”, the Court added.

The Court in two appeals for the removal of the remarks set aside orders dated December 1, 2020, and December 7, 2021, passed by the High Court.

The civil appeals arose from orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in CLMA No.14165/2018 and WPMS No.763/2010. The appellant approached the Supreme Court for the expunging of certain remarks made by the High Court judge regarding the lawyer's conduct during court proceedings.

The order in WPMS No.763/2010 noted that the advocate, representing a respondent in the matter, had left the courtroom “without even expressing his courtesy of leaving the Court to attend the proceedings in the other Courts”. The High Court judge expressed displeasure over this.

The Supreme Court determined that the comments were unwarranted. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the advocate and the circumstances did not justify the recording of such remarks.

“Having considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Judge, we are of the opinion that neither the conduct, nor the circumstance warranted recording of the remarks. These remarks are unjustified and illegal”, the Court said.

The Court referred to a previous case, Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani, involving the same High Court judge where a similar situation had occurred. In that case, the Supreme Court had expunged remarks made by the same judge against another practicing advocate.

The Court had in that case underscored the importance of judicial restraint when making comments about counsel, particularly when those comments have no bearing on the case's adjudication.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent that they related to the conduct of the advocate and expunged all the remarks made against the advocate.

The Supreme Court noted that the perception of the High Court judge, as previously observed in the Neeraj Garg case, did not warrant further examination in this case.

“In view of the fact that perception of the same learned Judge has already been noticed in Neeraj Garg (supra), we do not need to re-examine the approach adopted by the learned Judge even in this case.”

The Supreme Court in Neeraj Garg had emphasized the principle that judicial comments should not be based on personal perceptions and must not be made without giving the concerned lawyer a chance to explain.

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 011043 - 011044 /2024

Case Title – Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785