The Supreme Court has cautioned the high courts against the growing tendency to publicly criticise subordinate judicial officers, observing that “the high court is expected to act as the guardian of officers in the district judiciary”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside a Calcutta High Court order cancelling an accused’s bail in a tenancy-related criminal case.
The top court said the dispute was largely civil in nature and that the high court was not justified in unsettling a bail order after nearly eight years on technical grounds.
“It has become a recent trend to castigate judicial officers and record adverse remarks/strictures against them in judicial orders passed by the high court in the exercise of supervisory, appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
“The high court, being a court of record in the state, is expected to act as the guardian of the officers in the district judiciary,” the bench said.
The apex court also said that while finding infirmities in the order passed by a judicial officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned officer in a judicial dispensation.
“Such disparaging remarks/strictures may ruin the career of the judicial officer in addition to demoralising the district judiciary as a whole.
“Power of superintendence conferred upon the high courts by Article 227 of the Constitution ought not to be used as a tool of oppression but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding judicial officers in the state,” the bench said.
The top court said that in some high courts, an in-house mechanism is already in place to take care of a situation whenever any flaw or infirmity is noted in any order passed by the trial judge while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction.
“The observations of the hon’ble judge/bench on the merits or quality of the order or the proceedings of the presiding officer of the trial court can be noted in a remark slip, which, in turn, would be placed before the administrative judge or the chief justice of the high court, as the case may be, for necessary follow-up action,” the bench said.
Also Read: ‘People have the right to criticise judgments,’ says Supreme Court
