Judgment name – Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Ors.
Judgment date – 2nd August, 2021
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4555 4559 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.86438647 of 2021)
Today, Supreme court expunged a High Court order. After this judgment, now judges will have to give an opportunity of hearing the counsel that why such judgments have been relied. This small but effective ruling by Supreme Court today will mark in the realm of justice. More or less, this judgment was important.
Let’s read some roots of the case:
Supreme Court in Para 15:
“It is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.”
Facts:
- That appellant was regularly practicing in the Uttarakhand High Court with a fairly large practice.
- That remarks/observations made by the learned Judge against the Appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him, before recording the adverse comments.
- That recordings are neither essential nor necessary for the Court’s verdict in the concerned cases.
The Unnecessary/Remarks of the High Court Judge
“This Court before addressing the judgment relied, on its merit, this Court had a l ready observed in para 2, 3 and 4 of the judgment, the modus operandi, of the counsel for the petitioner to place reliance on the irrelevant judgments, which had got no significance or its applicability, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, and this Court has already consciously observed that the intention behind making reference to the judgement, was to mislead the Court and to buy time in prolonging the proceedings in order to overcome the effect of dismissal of the concurrent, Writ Petitions in limine by placing voluminous judgements on records, and making references of them, by quoting its excerpts”.
Supreme Court Held:
“In view of the forgoing, we are of the considered opinion that the offending remarks recorded by the learned judge against the appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court. It is accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant’s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar. We therefore order expunction of the extracted remarks in paragraphs 4,5,6, and 7 of this judgement”.
Link to the Judgment:-
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/10328/10328_2021_37_1501_28962_Judgement_02-Aug-2021.pdf