Supreme Court emphasizes judicial decorum, deletes High Court's remarks against officer.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by deleting the remarks made by the High Court against the judicial officer, emphasizing that the remarks were unnecessary and unjustified. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial decorum and restraint, stating that judges should refrain from making derogatory remarks unless absolutely necessary for the case's decision. The Supreme Court found the High Court's criticism of the officer to be improper and unwarranted, noting that the officer had acted within his judicial capacity, even if his decision was deemed incorrect.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of expunging remarks made by a judge.
2. Appropriateness of the judicial officer's actions in granting and recalling bail.
3. Justifiability of the High Court's remarks and strictures against the judicial officer.
4. Principles of judicial decorum and restraint.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Expunging Remarks Made by a Judge:
The appeal concerns the expunging of remarks made by a single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta against a judicial officer. The Supreme Court referenced a prior case, *State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim*, emphasizing that judges must maintain proper freedom and independence while also being guided by justice, fair-play, and restraint. The Court underscored that judicial pronouncements should not depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve.

2. Appropriateness of the Judicial Officer's Actions in Granting and Recalling Bail:
The judicial officer, serving as Additional District & Sessions Judge, initially granted bail to an accused under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the non-submission of a charge sheet. However, upon learning that the charge sheet had been submitted, the officer recalled the bail order. The High Court later set aside the recall order, stating that it was passed without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.

3. Justifiability of the High Court's Remarks and Strictures Against the Judicial Officer:
The Supreme Court found the remarks and strictures made by the High Court against the judicial officer to be improper and unwarranted. The High Court had criticized the officer for allegedly ignoring its directions and displaying an impolite and arrogant attitude. The Supreme Court noted that the officer had complied with the High Court's directive to hear the matter afresh and had acted within his judicial capacity. It was held that even if the officer's decision was incorrect, it did not warrant such harsh criticism.

4. Principles of Judicial Decorum and Restraint:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of judicial decorum and restraint, citing several precedents. It emphasized that judges should avoid making derogatory or disparaging remarks against parties, witnesses, or subordinate officers unless absolutely necessary for the decision of the case. The Court highlighted that judges are human and fallible, and their comments should reflect sobriety and moderation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of deleting the remarks made by the High Court against the judicial officer, emphasizing that such remarks were neither necessary nor justified in the context of the case.

---