Legalcops – Legal Blog – Business Registrations & Tax Compliances

Hi there,

Supreme Court expunged unnecessary remarks made by a High Court Judge to a 17 years Standing Counsel of Uttarakhand High Court

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.”


  1. That appellant was regularly practicing in the Uttarakhand High Court with a fairly large practice.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *