Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the adverse remarks and consequential direction made against the subordinate judicial officer in the revisional judgment were justified and liable to be expunged.
Analysis: Superior courts are required to exercise restraint while correcting an order of a subordinate judge. Even where the order under challenge is found erroneous, criticism must remain sober, restrained and judicial in tone. Attributing motives, using intemperate language, or issuing punitive directions against a judicial officer without necessity undermines judicial decorum, the dignity of the office, and public confidence in the administration of justice. The proper course for correcting perceived error is reasoned adjudication, with administrative action if required, rather than public strictures in the judgment.
Conclusion: The adverse remarks and the direction against the judicial officer were unwarranted and were expunged.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the offending remarks, direction, and related record entries stood removed, leaving no adverse judicial censure against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A superior court, while reversing or setting aside an order of a subordinate judicial officer, must maintain judicial restraint and dignified language, and unwarranted strictures or motive-imputing remarks against the officer are liable to be expunged.