Expunging disparaging remarks against a judicial officer when unnecessary, unhearing-based, and irrelevant to the judgment's reasons.

Disparaging remarks against a subordinate judicial officer should not be included in a judicial order unless they are necessary to the decision and form an integral part of the reasoning. The officer should ordinarily be given an opportunity to explain or defend herself, and the comments must satisfy relevance, necessity and potential harm tests. Where the remarks are wholly irrelevant to disposal of the matter and their removal does not affect the reasons for the judgment, they may be expunged. The Supreme Court also noted that any administrative concern about a judge's conduct should be placed before the appropriate administrative authority rather than recorded as condemnatory observations in the judicial order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse and disparaging remarks made by the High Court against a subordinate judicial officer in its order quashing criminal proceedings were unnecessary, unjustified and liable to be expunged.

Analysis: Remarks against a judicial officer should not be made unless they are necessary for the decision of the case and form an integral part of the reasoning. The officer must ordinarily be given an opportunity to explain or defend herself, and the criticism must satisfy the tests of relevance, necessity, and potential harm. If the impugned passages are wholly irrelevant to the disposal of the lis and their removal does not affect the reasons for the judgment, they may be expunged. The Court also emphasised that, where some administrative concern about a subordinate judge's conduct arises, the safer course is to decide the matter on merits and separately place the matter before the appropriate administrative authority rather than record condemnatory observations in the judicial order.

Conclusion: The remarks were not warranted by the needs of the decision, were made without affording the judicial officer an opportunity of hearing, and were directed to be expunged.

Ratio Decidendi: Disparaging remarks against a judicial officer are liable to be expunged when they are unnecessary to the decision, are made without hearing the officer, and their removal does not affect the operative reasons of the judgment.

---