Expunction of adverse judicial remarks requires hearing, evidentiary support, and necessity for decision; unsupported comments were deleted.

Disparaging judicial remarks against a departmental officer and standing counsel may be expunged where the affected persons were not heard, the record does not justify the strictures, and the comments were not necessary for deciding the writ petitions. The court applied the settled three-fold test for adverse remarks and held that the writ petitioner/assessee had no stake in the expunction issue, so notice was unnecessary. On that basis, the remarks were found unsustainable and liable to deletion from the common order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Department's appeal seeking expunction of adverse remarks made against its officer and standing counsel was maintainable and whether notice to the writ petitioner/assessee was ; (ii) Whether the adverse remarks made in the common order were sustainable under the governing tests for disparaging judicial comments.

Issue (i): Whether the Department's appeal seeking expunction of adverse remarks made against its officer and standing counsel was maintainable and whether notice to the writ petitioner/assessee was required.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to remarks personally affecting the officer and counsel. The Court applied the principle that a party aggrieved by disparaging remarks may seek their deletion, and that the person whose conduct is criticised need not be heard when the lis does not concern that grievance. Since the assessee had no stake in the question whether remarks against departmental officers and counsel should be expunged, notice was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable, and no notice to the writ petitioner/assessee was required.

Issue (ii): Whether the adverse remarks made in the common order were sustainable under the governing tests for disparaging judicial comments.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled three-fold test governing adverse remarks: whether the affected person had an opportunity to defend, whether there was evidence justifying the remarks, and whether such remarks were necessary for deciding the case. It found that neither the officer nor the standing counsel had been heard, the memo filed by the Department did not justify the strictures, and the remarks were not necessary for disposal of the writ petitions. The remarks were therefore uncalled for and contrary to the required restraint in judicial language.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks were unsustainable and liable to be expunged.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the adverse remarks against the departmental officer and standing counsel were deleted from the common order.

Ratio Decidendi: Disparaging remarks against a person cannot be sustained unless that person had an opportunity to defend, the record justifies the comments, and the remarks are necessary for the decision; where these conditions are absent, the remarks must be expunged.

---