Judicial restraint in remarks against subordinate judges: unwarranted strictures were expunged and bail jurisdiction was upheld.

Superior courts must exercise restraint before making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers, and criticism must be justified by the record and expressed with fairness. The remarks imputing casualness and extraneous considerations were found unwarranted and ordered to be expunged. In relation to bail under the NDPS framework, a Sessions Judge acting consistently with the prevailing Division Bench view could not be said to have lacked jurisdiction merely because the exercise of discretion was disputed. The strictures based on alleged lack of jurisdiction were therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the remarks made by the High Court against the subordinate judicial officer were justified and liable to be retained; (ii) Whether the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant bail in the NDPS case so as to warrant strictures against him.

Issue (i): Whether the remarks made by the High Court against the subordinate judicial officer were justified and liable to be retained.

Analysis: The power of a superior court to correct error does not authorise intemperate criticism of a subordinate judge. Where a judicial officer is not before the higher court as a party, fairness and institutional discipline require restraint, and any criticism must be expressed with care and only where justified by the record. The adverse observations imputing casualness and extraneous considerations were made and reiterated without adequate basis and without the procedural fairness expected before casting such aspersions on a judicial officer.

Conclusion: The impugned remarks were unwarranted and were ordered to be expunged; the issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant bail in the NDPS case so as to warrant strictures against him.

Analysis: The statutory bar on bail under the NDPS Act operates subject to the legal position applicable in the State, and the subordinate courts were bound by the prevailing Division Bench view relied on by the appellant. On that footing, the Sessions Judge could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction in passing the bail order, even if the exercise of discretion could be debated. A disputed exercise of discretion does not, by itself, justify imputations of ignorance of law or lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Sessions Judge acted within jurisdiction in granting bail, and the strictures predicated on alleged lack of jurisdiction were not justified; the issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms the need for judicial restraint in comments against subordinate judges and removes the offensive observations from the High Court order.

Ratio Decidendi: Strong criticism or imputations against a subordinate judicial officer are impermissible unless clearly justified on the record, and disagreement with a judicial order does not by itself warrant allegations of improper motive or lack of jurisdiction.

---