Top News Headlines 9th May 2022: SC Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer For Showing Undue Favour To A Party

SC Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer For Showing Undue Favour To A Party

• In Muzaffar Hussain vs State of UP the Hon’ble SC has upheld the disciplinary action taken against a Judicial Officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties. 
• The Court observed that showing undue favour to a party under the guise of judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct.
• The charge in this case was that an officer named Muzaffar Hussain, while being the Additional District Judge at Agra during 2001 to 2003 had exorbitantly increased the compensation in a batch of land acquisition matters, in violation of the settled principles in order to benefit subsequent purchasers. 
• In 2005, the Allahabad HC initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for the alleged misconduct and found the charges to be true. The State of Uttar Pradesh curtailed his pensionary benefits by 90% as punishment. The Officer challenged the punishment by filing a writ petition. The HC however, refused to interfere with the findings, but reduced the punishment to curtailment of pensionary benefits by 70%. The Officer then approached the Apex Court to challenge the verdict. 
• Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice AM Bhattacharjee and ors (1995) SCC, the Court observed that maintenance of high standards of conduct and character of judicial officers has always been a matter of great concern for the Apex Court.
• In Sadhna Chaudhary vs State of UP (2020) SCC the Court reiterated that the judicial officers must adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity.
• Reference was also made to the case of Union of India vs KK Dhawan wherein it was held that the disciplinary action can be taken against judicial or quasi-judicial powers in the following circumstances:

1.      Where the officer has acted in a manner that would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith;
2.    If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
3.    If he acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant;
4.    If he has acted negligently, or has omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of his statutory powers.
5.     If he acted in order to unduly favour a party;
6.     If he has acted with a corrupt motive, no matter how small the bribe might be.

• Referring to the case of High Court of Judicature At Bombay vs Shashikant S Patil and anr (2000) SCC the Court observed that interference with a departmental inquiry is allowed only when the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or in contravention of the statutory regulations regulating such proceedings or if the decision is found to be arbitrary or capricious. The Court cannot act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry if it has been conducted fairly and properly.
• The Apex Court observed that there was enough evidence on record to show that the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging duties as a judicial officer and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the provisions of the law, to unduly favour the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands, who did not have the right to claim the compensation, more particularly when section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act specifically states that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. The Court also observed that these orders were influenced by corrupt motives. 
• The appeal was, thus, dismissed. 

Smuggling Of Gold Of Bailable Quantity Cannot Be Treated As A Terrorist Act: Rajasthan HC

• In the instant case, Azaz Khan v. N.I.A., the Division Bench held that Schedule II of the UAPA Act does not include the Customs Act, and the smuggling of gold, that too of a quantity bailable, does not pose threat to economic security and hence can not be deemed as a terrorist act.
• The Custom Officer procured about 18kg gold bar from the possession of 10 alleged accused from Jaipur Airport and the case was registered for offense u/s 135 of Customs Act. 
• On similar facts, an FIR was also registered for offense u/s 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and u/s 120B IPC by the National Investigating Agency, New Delhi.
• Subsequently, bail was granted as the value of gold seized from each accused was less than Rs. 1 crore and the customs duty payable was less than Rs. 50 lakh. The main contention for the appellant/accused was after being released on bail, the NIA registered the FIR u/s 16 of UA(P)A. 
• The accused specified in their statement that they were labourers abroad and due to the pandemic, they lost their job and were forced to return back to India. As they did not have any means to come back, they agreed to carry gold in exchange for free air tickets. 
• Therefore, it was affirmed by the petitioner though they were carrying gold with them, the appellant/accused were not involved in any terrorist activities. 
• The petitioner placed relied on Mohammad Shafi v NIA, 2021 judgment by Kerala HC where it was interpreted that u/s 15(1)(a)(iiia) of UA(P)A smuggling of gold cannot be treated as a terrorist act unless the circumstances were found to be otherwise. 
• The respondent vehemently opposed and contended that Jaipur was turning into a hub of smuggling and that passengers are being treated as scapegoats in smuggling activities. It was also argued that the Apex Court has taken a very stringent view in dealing with economic offenses. 
• The Division Bench in the present case upheld the decision of Mohammad Shafi v NIA, Kerala HC where it was held that Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of UA(P)A was not attracted when gold is smuggled into the country.
• Even from the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it was sought that no deliberation took place to consider gold as material u/s 15(1)(a)(iiia) of UA(P)A.