Adverse Remarks Against Public Officials Should Not Be Passed Unless Absolutely Necessary : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed the adverse remarks should not be passed against public officials unless absolutely necessary.

"Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve.", the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed.

In this case, Shikha Trading Company filed a Writ Petition against the illegal sealing of its shop by the officers of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab. Allowing it, the High Court, observed that Rishi Pal Singh, an officer of the State posted as Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner (AETC Ludhiana-I) had filed an affidavit taking a false defence. Hence it directed to initiate criminal proceedings against him with the registration of FIR.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that this officer was neither made party to the dispute, nor was he given an opportunity to show cause. Further, nothing on record reflected the officer holding an animus against the writ petitioner, before such adverse directions were passed against him.

Referring to earlier judgments, especially State of UP v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703, the court observed:

Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand.

Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve.

Such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”. It further flows therefrom that “adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”.

On the issue of how the power to expunge remarks may be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court, the court made the following observations:

With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undefined powerOnly to remedy a flagrant abuse of power which has been made by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudiceThe High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. Though in the context of Judicial officers, this Court has observed that “The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the error but not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane.

Having noted this, the bench observed that the directions issued by the High Court in registration of criminal investigation against an officer, is against the above-referred settled principles of law, having a demoralizing effect on the well-meaning officers of the State. Thus the same were expunged.

The officer was represented by Maninder Singh Sr Advocate and Nikhil Jain AoR

State of Punjab vs Shika Trading Co. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 - 2023 INSC 773

Adverse Remarks - Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand - Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve - Such remarks, “due to the great power vested inour robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”- "Adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”. (Para 17-18)

Power to Expunge - How the power to expunge remarks may be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court - With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undefined power - Only to remedy a flagrant abuse of power which has been made by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudice -The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. Though in the context of Judicial officers, this Court has observed that “The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the error but not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane. (Para 19-20)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment