The Supreme Court has termed as “unfair, not in the interest of justice, a gross abuse of the process of law, and without justification” all the adverse remarks made by a single judge of the High Court of Karnataka against Additional Director General of Police Seemant Kumar Singh and the then Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, J. Manjunath.
Besides expunging all the adverse remarks made by the High Court against them, the Supreme Court has also quashed the orders passed against Mr. Singh and Mr. Manjunath, including summoning of certain records from the Central Bureau of Investigation related to a probe conducted 10 years ago against Mr. Singh in connection with illegal mining cases.
A bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in its March 21 order expunged all the adverse remarks while allowing the three separate appeals filed by the State government, Mr. Singh and Mr. Manjunath.
The appellants had questioned the legality of adverse remarks made by a single judge in his order passed on July 4 and 7, 2022, against the Karnataka Anti Corruption Bureau, Mr. Manjunath and Mr. Singh, who was then heading the ACB [which is now defunct].
During hearing of bail plea
The single judge had made the remarks during the hearing of a petition seeking bail filed by Mahesh P.S, a Deputy Tahsildar, who was arrested by the ACB in a ₹5 lakh bribery case. Mahesh was then working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.
The Supreme Court said that actions of the High Court in making adverse remarks against the appellants are “manifestly arbitrary and unjust” as they were not even parties or connected to the bail proceedings of an accused and no allegations against them were made in the petition.
Not party to bail
Pointing out that Mr. Singh was not a party to the bail proceedings personally as he was merely heading the ACB, the Supreme Court said that making “scathing and egregious remarks against him” by the High Court was “unreasonable and without justification... and unfair and not in the interest of justice.”
On remarks made by the High Court against Mr. Manjunath, the Supreme Court said remarks are “a gross abuse of the process of law to pass such adverse remarks against him, as such remarks do not just cause injury to his reputation, but also has the potential to cause great prejudice to his actual trial.”
Be cautions on remarks as live broadcast of it can damage reputation of parties, SC tells judges
Noticing that adverse remarks had received wide publicity as the court proceeding was livestreamed on High Court’s official YouTube channel, the Supreme Court said it attaches “a stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court proceedings.”
“Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have ramifications that are far reaching, and as can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the reputation of the parties involved,” the Supreme Court observed.
“In such a circumstance, it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary,” the Supreme Court advised the constitutional courts.
