BACKGROUND-
Supreme Court disapproves comments passed by Uttarakhand High Court judge against a lawyer. The Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over unfavourable remarks made by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court judge against an advocate regarding the latter’s conduct during court proceedings. Terming the remarks made by Uttarakhand High Court judge Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma as unjustified, illegal and nothing so ‘serious’ to be taken note of, the Apex Court set aside two orders passed by the High Court on December 1, 2020, and December 7, 2021.
INTRODUCTION-
“We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of,” the Court said. The Supreme Court recently expunged certain adverse remarks made by a sitting judge of the Uttarakhand High Court against an advocate in two orders in Siddhartha Singh vs. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others. The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order on two civic appeals seeking the expunging of certain remarks made by the High Court judge regarding the lawyer’s conduct during court proceedings.
KEY ASPECTS-
The appellant contended that the High Court order passed in WPMS No.763/2010 noted that the advocate, representing a respondent in the matter, had left the courtroom without even ‘expressing his courtesy’ of leaving the Court to attend the proceedings in other courts. The High Court judge had expressed his strong displeasure over the conduct of the lawyer. Noting that the comments were unwarranted, the Apex Court observed that neither the conduct of the advocate nor the circumstances warranted recording of such remarks.
The Bench recalled a similar case involving the same High Court judge. It said in Neeraj Garg vs Sarita Rani case, the Apex Court had expunged remarks made by the same judge against another practicing advocate.
In that case, the top court of the country had underscored the importance of judicial restraint when making comments about a counsel, particularly when those comments did not have any bearing on the case’s adjudication.
The Apex Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent that they were related to the conduct of the advocate and expunged all the remarks made against the advocate.
CONCLUSION-
The perception of the High Court judge, as previously observed in the Neeraj Garg case, did not warrant further examination in this case, noted the Bench.
In Neeraj Garg case, the top court of the country had emphasised the principle that judicial comments should not be based on personal perceptions and must not be made without giving the concerned lawyer a chance to explain.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- ALOK G. CHHAPARWAL
