1993 JTR(SC) 1029
1993 3 AICLR 790 ; 1994 AIR(SC) 1031 ; 1994 AIR(SCW) 1129 ; 1993 CriLR 737 ; 1994 CriLR(Cal) 115 ; 1993 3 Crimes(SC) 1071 ; 1994 CrLJ 1377 ; 1994 1 EastCrC(SC) 103 ; 1995 1 EastCrC(SC) 307 ; 1994 JLJ 83 ; 1993 6 JT 287 ; 1993 4 Scale 305 ; 1994 Supp1 SCC 540 ; 1994 SCC(Cri) 712 ; 1993 Supp3 SCR 497 ; 1994 KHC 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
K. P. Tiwari, Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Spl. Leave Petn. (CRL) Nos. 2081-82 of 1993, D/- 29-10-1993.
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482, S.354 - Expunction of remarks - Reversal of order
Advocates appeared
Mr. K.N. Shalla, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, Advocate with him for Petitioner.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
(A) The petition arises under the authority of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal or to exercise suo motu jurisdiction over matters pending before or decided by any court or tribunal in India. The instant case pertains to the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction to expunge adverse remarks made by a High Court while reversing bail orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, while cancelling the bail granted to accused persons in charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, made observations questioning the integrity and impartiality of the judicial officer, suggesting corrupt influence and disregard for law. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 136, allowed the petition to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by removing those damaging remarks from the record.
(B) The core legal principles include the high threshold required for superior courts to interfere with bail decisions, the necessity to respect the independence and dignity of subordinate judiciary, the principle that errors of judgment do not necessarily imply misconduct, and the discretion of higher courts to expunge prejudicial observations that undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Facts of the case:
The accused in two miscellaneous criminal cases were charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge was rejected on merits, yet temporary bail was subsequently granted, leading to permanent bail. The State supported a High Court petition to cancel this bail. The High Court cancelled the bail, finding no justification for release, but also made remarks alleging the Additional Sessions Judge was improperly influenced and wrote orders releasing the accused without proper verification. The Supreme Court noted that while the cancellation was justified, the adverse remarks against the judicial officer were inappropriate.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court accepted that the High Court was correct in cancelling the bail on factual and legal grounds. However, it held that the observations casting aspersions on the integrity of the subordinate judge were unjustified,
Issues:
Whether the High Court could make adverse findings of misconduct against a subordinate judicial officer for exercising a discretion in bail matters. Whether such remarks, even if factually based, should be allowed to remain in the record when the bail order itself is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi:
While superior courts have the power to correct errors and set aside improper bail orders, they must do so without impugning the motives or integrity of subordinate judges. Public criticism of judicial decisions must be confined to legal and factual review, and attributing corrupt influence or dishonesty undermines judicial independence and must be expunged to maintain institutional integrity.
Result:
The petition is allowed. The remarks imputing corrupt influence and misconduct to the Additional Sessions Judge are hereby expunged from the judgment of the High Court dated 13th July, 1991 in the specified cases.
(A) The petition arises under the authority of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal or to exercise suo motu jurisdiction over matters pending before or decided by any court or tribunal in India. The instant case pertains to the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction to expunge adverse remarks made by a High Court while reversing bail orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, while cancelling the bail granted to accused persons in charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, made observations questioning the integrity and impartiality of the judicial officer, suggesting corrupt influence and disregard for law. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 136, allowed the petition to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by removing those damaging remarks from the record.
(B) The core legal principles include the high threshold required for superior courts to interfere with bail decisions, the necessity to respect the independence and dignity of subordinate judiciary, the principle that errors of judgment do not necessarily imply misconduct, and the discretion of higher courts to expunge prejudicial observations that undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Facts of the case:
The accused in two miscellaneous criminal cases were charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge was rejected on merits, yet temporary bail was subsequently granted, leading to permanent bail. The State supported a High Court petition to cancel this bail. The High Court cancelled the bail, finding no justification for release, but also made remarks alleging the Additional Sessions Judge was improperly influenced and wrote orders releasing the accused without proper verification. The Supreme Court noted that while the cancellation was justified, the adverse remarks against the judicial officer were inappropriate.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court accepted that the High Court was correct in cancelling the bail on factual and legal grounds. However, it held that the observations casting aspersions on the integrity of the subordinate judge were unjustified,
Issues:
Whether the High Court could make adverse findings of misconduct against a subordinate judicial officer for exercising a discretion in bail matters. Whether such remarks, even if factually based, should be allowed to remain in the record when the bail order itself is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi:
While superior courts have the power to correct errors and set aside improper bail orders, they must do so without impugning the motives or integrity of subordinate judges. Public criticism of judicial decisions must be confined to legal and factual review, and attributing corrupt influence or dishonesty undermines judicial independence and must be expunged to maintain institutional integrity.
Result:
The petition is allowed. The remarks imputing corrupt influence and misconduct to the Additional Sessions Judge are hereby expunged from the judgment of the High Court dated 13th July, 1991 in the specified cases.
ANIS AHMED, K.N.Shukla
ORDER
This is a petition by a judicial officer who at the relevant time was an Additional Sessions Judge, for expunging remarks which were made against him by the High Court while reversing the orders of bail passed by him in Miscellaneous Criminal Case Nos. 816 of 1991 and 466 of 1991.
2. The undisputed facts are that the accused in those cases are charged with the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 506, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code A charge-sheet was being processed in respect of the offences in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time. The five accused in the meanwhile, applied for bail. Their application was considered on merits and rejected by the petitioner. However, in spite of the rejection of the application on merits, the petitioner first granted the accused temporary bail for one reason or the other and all of them were subsequently granted permanent bail. Against the order granting permanent bail, the complainant preferred an application to the High Court and prayed for cancellation of the bail. The State did not file a separate application but supported the complainants application and also pressed for the cancellation of the bail. The High Court discussed the case of each of the five accused who were granted bail and pointed out that on facts there was no justification for granting bail to any of them and by its order of 13th July. 1991, cancelled the bail of all the accuscd. However, while passing the order, the High Court made the following observations
"The fact that the final grant was made without hearing the State Govt. and without verifying the fact, points to the interestedness of Shri K.P. Tiwari, learned First Add1. Sessions Judge in the non-applicants. Indeed this interestedness is apparent in all the five cases. The impression that one gets is that Shri R.P. Tiwari, First A.S.J. has been won over by the non-applicants and therefore was open to write any judgment, or order, releasing non-applicants on bail. It is therefore a ease where the non-applicant (sic) not only have shown disregard to law and the judicial process but are also reasonably suspected of exercising corrupt influence over Shri K.P. Tiwari. the First A.S.J. This Court has necessarily to recall such orders.
x x x x x
Indeed, it (Court) will be failing in its duty if it accepts corrupting influence of the non-applicants (sic) and permits illegal orders to remain effective."
There is no doubt that the High Court was fully justified in cancelling the bail granted by the petitioner. In fact, on the facts and circumstances on record, we are not at all satisfied that there was any case in favour of the accused for releasing them on bail.
We are, however, impelled to remind the learned Judge of the High Court that however anguished he might have been over the unmerited bail granted to the accused, he should not have allowed himself the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety even momentarily. The higher Courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. That is one of the functions of the superior courts. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err. It is well said that a judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference in views of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such occasions, the lower courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not therefore, be attributed to improper motive. It is possible that a particular judicial officer may be consistently passing orders creating a suspicion of judicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly attributable to innocent functioning. Even in such cases, the proper course for the higher court to adopt is to make note of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on proper occasions. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly, no greater damage and be done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary can when the judges of the higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other. It must be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are publicly passed. stand condemned for ever in the eyes of their subordinates and of the members of the public. No better device can be found to destroy the judiciary from within. The judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint. There are ways and ways of expressing disapproval of the orders of the subordinate courts but attributing motives to them is certainly not one of them. That is the surest way to take the judiciary downhill.
We, therefore, accept the petition and expunge the above-quoted remarks from the judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court delivered on 13th July, 1991 in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 816 and 466 of 1991. The petition is allowed accordingly.
Petition allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 1031