Personal adverse remarks against a judicial officer should be avoided; strictures in a bail order were expunged.

Personal adverse remarks against a judicial officer should ordinarily be avoided in a judicial order, and any concern about conduct should be left to the High Court's administrative side rather than recorded as criticism in the merits order. The strictures in the impugned bail order were therefore unwarranted because they rested on a precedent later reversed and were made without giving the officer an opportunity to explain. The remarks were expunged and the order was modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the strictures passed against a judicial officer in the impugned bail order were warranted and required to be expunged.

Analysis: The appeal concerned adverse observations made against a judicial officer while deciding a bail matter. The governing principle is that superior courts may correct erroneous orders, but should ordinarily refrain from recording personal criticism of a judicial officer's conduct or calibre in the judicial order itself. If any concern exists regarding the conduct of a subordinate judicial officer, the safer course is to decide the lis on merits and place the matter before the administrative side of the High Court for appropriate consideration. The impugned strictures were also founded on a precedent later reversed, and they were recorded without giving the judicial officer an opportunity of explanation.

Conclusion: The strictures were uncalled for and were expunged, with the impugned order modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal adverse remarks against a judicial officer should ordinarily be avoided in judicial orders, and concerns about conduct should be dealt with separately on the administrative side rather than by condemning the officer unheard.

---