Judicial officer remarks: stigmatic criticism unnecessary to decide the case may be expunged from the order.

Superior courts may correct legal errors in a judicial order and use firm language directed to those errors, but personal or stigmatic remarks against a serving judicial officer are improper when unnecessary to decide the controversy. Criticism must stay confined to the legality of the impugned order, because adverse comments on the officer's conduct or future approach can stigmatise the officer and cause lasting harm without affording a hearing. Where misconduct or impropriety is noticed, judicial review of the order should be kept separate from any administrative consideration of the officer's conduct. On that principle, unnecessary remarks describing the officer's approach and future conduct were held liable to be expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether adverse remarks made in a judicial order against a serving judicial officer, which went beyond criticism of the impugned order and commented on the officer's conduct and future approach, were liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that superior courts may correct erroneous orders and, where necessary, use strong language directed to the legal errors in the order. However, personal strictures or stigmatic remarks against a judicial officer should be avoided, because the officer is effectively condemned unheard and such remarks may cause lasting harm to dignity and career. The proper course, where misconduct or impropriety of a judicial officer is noticed, is to separate judicial correction of the order from administrative action, leaving any further concern to be dealt with on the administrative side. Applying that principle, the remarks describing the appellant's approach as an "inexorable quest" and a "judicial misadventure", and the advice to be circumspect in future, were held to be unnecessary and improper.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 were rightly ordered to be expunged.

Final Conclusion: Personal criticism of a judicial officer in a judicial order, when not necessary for deciding the controversy, must be avoided and may be removed by the superior court while preserving the distinction between judicial review of the order and administrative consideration of the officer's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: A superior court may expunge stigmatic or personal remarks against a judicial officer if such remarks are not necessary for deciding the case, because criticism must remain confined to the legality of the impugned order and not the personal conduct or calibre of the officer.

---