NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has warned high courts against the growing trend of public criticism of subordinate judicial officers, stating that “the Supreme Court is expected to act as guardian of the personnel of the domestic judiciary.”
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made this observation while quashing the Calcutta High Court’s order canceling the bail of an accused in a rent-related criminal case.
The Supreme Court said the dispute was largely civil in nature and the High Court was not justified in quashing the bail order after nearly eight years on technical grounds.
“It has become a recent trend to punish judicial officers and record adverse observations/restrictions against them in the writs passed by the Supreme Court in exercise of supervisory, appellate or review jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court, being a court of record in the state, is expected to act as guardian of the officers in the local judiciary,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court also said that though there are flaws in the order passed by a judicial officer, the immediate reaction should not be to make negative or derogatory remarks against the officer concerned in a judicial relief.
“Such derogatory remarks/restrictions may destroy the career of a judicial officer as well as demoralize the local judiciary as a whole.
“The supervisory power given to the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be used as an instrument of oppression but rather as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding the judicial officers of the state,” the bench said.
The apex court said that in some high courts, there is already an internal mechanism to take care of the situation when any defect or deficiency is noticed in any order passed by the trial judge while exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
“The observations of the Hon’ble Judge/tribunal on the merits or quality of the order or actions of the Chief Justice of the Trial Court may be recorded in an observation memorandum, which in turn will be placed before the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, as the case may be, for necessary follow-up action,” the bench said.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
