Judicial remarks against an officer require restraint and record support; unwarranted adverse comments were ordered expunged.

Adverse judicial remarks against a judicial officer must be necessary to the decision, supported by the record, and made with restraint; where criticism is unnecessary and issued without giving the officer an opportunity to explain, it is unwarranted. The Court found that the remarks against the officer were not required for deciding the appeal and that the direction to place the judgment in his personal service record and before the Inspecting Judge could prejudice his career. The remarks and consequential directions were therefore ordered to be expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse remarks and directions made against a judicial officer in the judgment were warranted and liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The adverse observations were not shown to be necessary for deciding the appeal on merits and were made without giving the officer an opportunity to explain the conduct criticised. The record and the officer's service profile indicated that the remarks were unwarranted, and the direction to place the judgment in the personal service record and before the Inspecting Judge had the potential to prejudice his career. The principles governing judicial remarks require restraint, sobriety, moderation and reserve, and such strictures are justified only when essential to the decision and supported by the record.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks and consequential directions were neither justified nor called for, and were ordered to be expunged in favour of the appellant.

---