Adverse judicial comments need reliable evidence, while additional evidence on appeal requires due diligence and clear relevance.

Adverse judicial comments on a party's conduct were upheld where the party had notice and an opportunity to meet the allegation, but they could not be sustained as a positive finding of fact without reliable direct evidence. The Court accepted that the grade sheets had been tampered with and that the examiner was mainly responsible, yet it declined to attribute the tampering to the erstwhile Chief Minister as a factual conclusion. The Court also reaffirmed that additional evidence on appeal is admitted only on showing due diligence, fair opportunity to the opposite side, and clear relevance; the proposed material failed that test and was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the remarks attributing tampering of examination grades to the erstwhile Chief Minister were justified as a judicial conclusion or whether they required modification or expunction; (ii) whether additional evidence sought to be introduced on appeal should be admitted.

Issue (i): whether the remarks attributing tampering of examination grades to the erstwhile Chief Minister were justified as a judicial conclusion or whether they required modification or expunction

Analysis: The material on record established tampering with the grade sheets and supported the finding that the examiner was mainly responsible for it. There was, however, no direct evidence linking the erstwhile Chief Minister to the tampering, and the allegations rested on affidavit material that was found unreliable in important respects. At the same time, the Chief Minister was a party, had an opportunity to meet the allegation, and the surrounding circumstances justified judicial comment on his conduct. The distinction drawn by the High Court between a finding and a comment did not alter the practical effect of the observations, though the absence of direct proof prevented the stronger formulation from being sustained as a finding of fact.

Conclusion: The remarks could not stand as a positive finding that the tampering was done at the behest of the erstwhile Chief Minister, but the Court upheld the propriety of adverse comment on the material before the High Court and substituted the language used below.

Issue (ii): whether additional evidence sought to be introduced on appeal should be admitted

Analysis: Additional evidence is admissible only where due diligence is shown, the opposite side has a fair opportunity to meet it, and the evidence is relevant to the issue in dispute. The proposed material consisted largely of controversial allegations about similar conduct on other occasions, but there was no satisfactory explanation why it could not have been produced earlier, and its probative value for the issues in the case was unsafe. Evidence of similar facts may be received only when it is logically probative and not unfair or oppressive, which was not satisfied here.

Conclusion: The request to adduce additional evidence was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by maintaining the finding of tampering, declining to accept the broader factual finding against the erstwhile Chief Minister, and refusing additional evidence, with only a limited modification of the language used in the impugned observations.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings based on affidavit evidence, adverse judicial observations about a party's conduct are permissible when the party had an opportunity to meet the allegation and the circumstances justify them, but a stronger finding of fact requires reliable evidence; additional evidence on appeal will not be admitted absent due diligence and clear probative relevance.

---