Duty of subordinate judiciary is not only onerous but pious too: Supreme Court

A sense of injustice can have serious repercussions, says apex court

December 23, 2019 06:25 pm | Updated 06:46 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A view of the Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. File

A view of the Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. File

A judicial officer in the subordinate courts performs a “pious duty” in the service of justice. The standards of probity, conduct and integrity of a judicial officer in discharge of his duties are not the same of a careerist who is only bothered about advancement in his profession, the Supreme Court said in a recent judgment.

A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha pronounced the judgment in an appeal filed by Ram Murti Yadav, who was an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Uttar Pradesh. In 2007, Mr. Yadav acquitted accused in a criminal case. A vigilance enquiry into his conduct gave an unfavourable report in 2012. A judicial committee ordered his compulsory retirement in 2016. The State High Court dismissed his appeal.

Mr. Yadav, represented by senior advocate R. Basant, said the judgment of acquittal was an error committed during the discharge of judicial functions. Surely, a judicial officer cannot be retired compulsorily for an “inadvertent mistake” after colouring it with an “inference of dishonesty”. However, the judgment authored by Justice Sinha for the Bench, confirmed the order of compulsory retirement. “It has to be kept in mind that a person seeking justice has the first exposure to the justice delivery system at the level of subordinate judiciary. Thus, a sense of injustice can have serious repercussions not only on that individual but can have its fall out in society as well,” Justice Sinha reasoned.

The apex court said it was absolutely necessary that the ordinary litigant’s faith in the judiciary is kept intact. Even creating a perception to the contrary may have very damaging consequences.

“The standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict. Having said so, we must also observe that it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will make a judicial officer culpable,” the Supreme Court observed.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.