2024 (11) TMI 1472 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows appeal after High Court made adverse observations without hearing appellant first

Dushyant Mainali Versus Diwan Singh Bora & Anr.

The SC allowed the appeal challenging adverse observations made by the HC of Uttarakhand. The court held that all courts, including the highest court, are ... Challenge to adverse observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no necessity to reiterate that even the Courts, including a highest court of the Country, are bound by principle of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard. The approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a High Court may make adverse observations against an advocate without affording that advocate an opportunity of being heard, consistent with the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether adverse remarks by a court that effectively accuse an advocate of professional misconduct may be expunged when made without prior opportunity of hearing, and what remedy is appropriate to cure the procedural defect. 3. Whether a direction by a court to refer alleged professional misconduct to the Bar Council (including timelines for disciplinary proceedings) is sustainable where such direction is premised upon untested adverse findings made without hearing the advocate. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Natural justice: requirement of opportunity to be heard before adverse judicial observations Legal framework: The fundamental principles of natural justice require that no person be condemned unheard; courts are bound to afford an opportunity to respond before making adverse findings affecting reputation or professional standing. This obligation applies to judicial officers as well as to the highest courts. Precedent Treatment: The Court refers to its prior rulings criticizing a particular judge's proclivity to make remarks against advocates without hearing them. Those precedents demonstrate the consistent application of the natural justice requirement and the Court's disapproval of mechanically recording adverse imputations absent hearing. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court holds that the High Court's approach of making adverse observations about the appellant (an advocate who was not appearing in the matter and had not been heard) is totally unsustainable in law. The reasoning rests on the premise that adverse judicial remarks that impugn professional conduct engage reputation and disciplinary consequences; therefore, they must be founded on a fair opportunity to answer. The Court emphasizes that even courts at the highest level are bound by these principles. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that a court must afford a hearing before making adverse observations about an advocate is ratio, as it is necessary to the disposition and is applied to expunge the impugned observations. Conclusions: Adverse observations made without affording an opportunity to be heard violate natural justice and are unsustainable; such observations must be expunged or set aside. Issue 2 - Expungement of unheeded adverse judicial observations and appropriate remedial measure Legal framework: Relief by way of expungement is available where judicial records contain remarks that are unjustified, prejudicial, or recorded without compliance with natural justice. Courts have the power to delete portions of judgments/orders that are unfair or extraneous to the judicial determination. Precedent Treatment: The Court relies upon and follows earlier pronouncements criticizing similar conduct by the same judicial officer, treating them as precedential admonitions supporting remedial expungement when required to vindicate fairness and protect reputation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court finds that the specific passages in the impugned order - which attribute false assurances by counsel, accuse counsel of professional misconduct, and direct a suo motu referral to the Bar Council with fixed timelines - were recorded without hearing the advocate and therefore are legally untenable. Given the absence of opportunity to answer, the Court concludes that the proper remedial step is to expunge the impugned portion from the record rather than to leave the findings to stand. The Court articulates that deletion cures the procedural unfairness and removes untested imputations that could prejudice disciplinary processes and professional reputation. Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision to expunge the impugned observations is ratio as it is the operative relief granted on the basis that natural justice was breached. Observations commenting generally on a judge's proclivity (as recorded) are supportive but secondary. Conclusions: The specific impugned portions of the High Court order that make adverse findings and direct disciplinary referral without hearing are expunged; expungement is the appropriate remedy where natural justice has not been observed prior to making such remarks. Issue 3 - Legitimacy of directing referral to Bar Council and fixing timelines where adverse findings are untested Legal framework: While courts possess inherent and statutory powers to take cognizance of apparent professional misconduct and may direct referral to disciplinary authorities, such powers must be exercised consistent with procedural fairness and the statutory procedures governing Bar Councils and the Advocates Act. Precedent Treatment: Prior orders of this Court have expressed disapproval of untested judicial referrals to disciplinary bodies when made without hearing, and have underscored that disciplinary processes must proceed in accordance with statutory safeguards. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that a referral to the Bar Council predicated upon judicial findings made without giving the accused advocate an opportunity to respond is procedurally flawed. Additionally, the High Court's direction to the Bar Council to 'proceed strictly' and to conclude proceedings within a specified six-month period stems from untested assertions and therefore cannot be sustained. The Court underscores that while the Bar Council may independently examine conduct and follow its own processes, a court should not pre-emptively impose disciplinary consequences when the underlying findings were recorded in breach of natural justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: The principle that referrals premised on untested judicial findings are impermissible without an opportunity to be heard is ratio in relation to the present relief (expungement and withdrawal of the referral direction). The Court's guidance that disciplinary processes must follow statutory procedure is declaratory and instructive. Conclusions: Directions referring alleged professional misconduct to the Bar Council and imposing timelines based on untested judicial findings are unsustainable; any referral should await compliance with natural justice and must respect the procedures and jurisdiction of disciplinary authorities. Cross-references and consolidation The issues are interrelated: the core defect identified is the absence of an opportunity to be heard before adverse judicial findings were recorded (Issue 1), which renders both the substance of the adverse observations and the consequential direction to the Bar Council (Issues 2 and 3) procedurally invalid. The remedy of expungement flows directly from the natural justice violation and removes both the untested imputations and the directive for disciplinary proceedings. Final disposition The Court deleted/expunged the specified portion of the judgment containing adverse imputations and the directive to refer the matter to the Bar Council, and allowed the appeal on that basis. The expungement and vacation of the referral direction constitute the operative relief derived from the application of natural justice and the Court's supervisory power over judicial records.