Date of judgement
2/8/2021
Judge
Justices RF Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy
Parties
Petitioner - Neeraj Garg
Respondent - Sarita Rani
Subject
- Should the judges avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the council which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court?
Overview
- The appellant is a practicing lawyer who has been a member of the Uttarakhand Bar for approximately 17 years. The purpose of this appeal is to have certain remarks made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court when resolving four instances, in which the appellant was representing one of the competing parties thrown out.
- On 02.07.2021, this Court issued a returnable notice in the matter, and Mr Amar Dave was designated as the amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr Dave appears and makes the necessary submissions.
- According to the Office Report in the case, the Appellant's Counsel sent out a letter on July 13, 2021, stating that the Petition was filed solely to expunge certain observations made against the Appellant by the High Court in the relevant cases, and that the Appellant is not seeking any relief against any of the arrayed Respondents, and that they should be treated as Proforma respondent.
Judgement analysis
- While it is critical in the administration of justice for judges to be able to carry out their duties freely, fearlessly, and without interference from anyone, it is also critical for judges to exercise restraint and refrain from making unnecessary remarks about the conduct of counsel that may have no bearing on the Court's decision.
- The appellant's professional integrity has been questioned as a result of the remarks made.
- It would be a violation of the rules of audi alteram partem to condemn the Counsel without first allowing him an opportunity to be heard. The required level of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also lacking in the objectionable remarks.
- The tone of the remarks made against the appellant will not only make him look bad in front of his peers but may also harm his professional career.
- If the comments are not deleted from the court rulings, the Appellant will have to carry a cross for the rest of his life.
Conclusion
The objectionable words against the appellant recorded by the learned judge should not have been recorded in the manner in which they were. The appellant, whose professional conduct was called into question, was not given the chance to explain or defend himself. The comments were also superfluous to the Court's decision. As a result, the offensive words must be recalled in order to protect the appellant's image and his work as a member of the Bar in the future.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
