TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Decisions Can Ignore Accused's Past if Strong Grounds Exist; Judicial Officers Protected from Unwarranted Criticism</h1> <h3>Ayub Khan Versus The State of Rajasthan</h3> Ayub Khan Versus The State of Rajasthan - 2024 INSC 994 ISSUES: Whether directions issued by the High Court mandating incorporation of detailed antecedents of accused in a specific tabular format in every bail order are binding on Trial Courts.Whether non-compliance with such directions by a judicial officer amounts to judicial indiscipline or contempt.Whether a High Court can call for an explanation from a judicial officer on the judicial side for alleged non-compliance of such directions.Whether adverse personal observations against a judicial officer in bail proceedings are permissible and what are the limits of judicial criticism.The scope of supervisory jurisdiction of higher courts over subordinate courts regarding bail orders and judicial conduct. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Jugal Kishore, requiring incorporation of antecedents in a particular tabular format in every bail order, 'cannot be said to be binding directions' and 'at the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions.'Non-compliance with the directions in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Jugal Kishore decision by a judicial officer 'cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt.'The High Court 'ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer' on the judicial side; such explanation can only be sought on the administrative side.Adverse remarks and personal criticism of judicial officers in judicial orders must be avoided; 'there is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer,' and 'the second category of criticism should best be avoided.'The High Court's adverse observations and directions against the judicial officer for non-compliance with the antecedents directions are 'unwarranted' and 'illegal,' and are set aside along with the direction to place the matter before the Chief Justice. RATIONALE: The Court relied on the settled principle that while higher courts have appellate, revisional, and supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors in subordinate courts' orders, they cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of Trial Courts by prescribing the manner or format in which orders must be passed.The presence or absence of antecedents is only one factor among many in bail considerations; mandating a fixed format for recording antecedents in every bail order unduly restricts judicial discretion and may cause unnecessary adjournments.The Court emphasized the distinction between judicial and administrative functions, holding that calling for explanations from judicial officers for alleged non-compliance is an administrative function and cannot be exercised by the High Court on the judicial side.The Court reiterated the principle from precedent that personal adverse comments on judicial officers in judgments can harm their careers and should be avoided, especially given the heavy workload and human propensity to err.The judgment referenced authoritative precedent underscoring the need for restraint in judicial criticism and the proper forum for addressing judicial conduct (administrative side), reinforcing the protection of judicial officers from unwarranted personal criticism in judicial orders.
TaxTMI 