The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that High Courts should act as guardians of the district judiciary rather than using their supervisory powers to criticise or demoralize judicial officers through adverse remarks in orders.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that High Courts should refrain from passing any negative remarks if they find any defects in the order passed by the judicial officer.
High Courts are “courts of record” and have a duty to guide and protect subordinate officers. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution should be a “mechanism for nurturing,” not a “tool of oppression.”
The Court warned that disparaging remarks can ruin a judicial officer’s career and demoralize the entire district judiciary.
Instead of disgracing the judicial officer publicly, the Supreme Court suggested using in-house administrative mechanisms, such as “remark slips” placed before a Chief Justice or Administrative Judge for follow-up action.
This observation by the Supreme Court was made while hearing a bail which arose from a civil suit in a tenancy matter. On dismissal of the suit in 2017, a criminal complaint was filed where the accused was arrested and granted interim bail by the Magistrate in 2018.
The High Court in the revision proceedings set aside the bail order passed by the Magistrate stating that it ignored mandated procedures and lacked official validation.
The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court has made a legal error which is contrary to evidence, ignores settled law, or is so unreasonable that no fair-minded person would have reached that conclusion.
The post Supreme Court says High Courts must protect, not mock district judiciary appeared first on India Legal.