Natural justice and restrained judicial language govern expunging remarks and setting aside invalidation made without hearing.

Intemperate judicial remarks and excessive directions may be expunged where they are unjustified, while the remaining part of the judgment can be left intact. A declaration affecting a vigilance manual or related circulars cannot be sustained when made without notice to the affected State and a fair opportunity of hearing, as this offends natural justice. The document also notes that strong language used in invalidating statutory or administrative materials is inappropriate where the court has proceeded without procedural fairness; the objectionable passages were removed in one judgment, and the other was set aside for want of notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the harsh and unwarranted directions and remarks in the first impugned judgment should be expunged while leaving the remainder of the judgment intact; (ii) whether the second impugned judgment could be sustained in view of the absence of notice and hearing and the use of strong language in declaring parts of the vigilance manual and related circulars invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the harsh and unwarranted directions and remarks in the first impugned judgment should be expunged while leaving the remainder of the judgment intact.

Analysis: The impugned directions were found to be excessive and harsh, especially the threat of contempt proceedings against the sanctioning authority and the strong criticism directed at judicial officers and prosecutors. The Court held that judicial language must be restrained and temperate, and that such generalized and intemperate observations were not justified. At the same time, the Court found no reason to disturb the rest of the judgment.

Conclusion: The offensive portion was expunged and the appeal was otherwise dismissed, leaving the remaining findings undisturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the second impugned judgment could be sustained in view of the absence of notice and hearing and the use of strong language in declaring parts of the vigilance manual and related circulars invalid.

Analysis: The declaration that portions of the vigilance manual were ultra vires rested on statutory provisions relating to corruption offences, but no notice had been issued to the State through the Advocate-General before such a declaration was made. The Court held that an order affecting parties without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing offended natural justice and could not be sustained. The language employed was also considered inappropriate and the High Court was found to have overstepped in the manner in which it proceeded.

Conclusion: The second impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with a reference made to the Central Vigilance Commission for further action in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially interfered with the first judgment by expunging the objectionable passages, but set aside the second judgment in full and directed further administrative action through the Central Vigilance Commission.

Ratio Decidendi: Intemperate judicial remarks and directions without justification may be expunged, and a declaration affecting rights or statutory instruments cannot be sustained when made without notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

---