Last paragraph containing disparaging remarks about officials expunged for harming reputation; judicial sobriety and restraint enforced

The HC set aside and expunged the last paragraph of the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2024 that contained disparaging remarks about members of the Appellate Tribunal, finding such comments potentially harmful to their reputation. Relying on SC authorities emphasizing judicial sobriety, restraint and protection of reputation, the court held that unnecessary caustic observations are impermissible and therefore deleted the offending paragraph.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether adverse, disparaging or caustic observations made by the Court in the concluding paragraph of a judgment should be expunged where they are not necessary for deciding the merits of the controversy.

2. What is the applicable standard and principle guiding Courts in making comments about the conduct of judicial or quasi-judicial functionaries, including when such comments may be harmful to reputation and therefore require deletion.

3. Whether expunction of adverse observations amounts to any comment on or interference with the merits of the underlying decision.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Expunction of adverse observations: Legal framework - Courts possess inherent powers to expunge portions of judgments that are unnecessary to the decision and which may cause undue harm to reputation; the power is exercised to prevent injustice arising from gratuitous remarks. Precedent treatment - Applied and followed the principles in authorities requiring sobriety, dispassionate reasoning and restraint before making disparaging observations about persons or authorities. Interpretation and reasoning - The Court examined the impugned last paragraph and concluded that the remarks were not essential to the resolution of the legal question decided (i.e., scope and temporal operation of an amendment to a statutory provision as interpreted in light of another High Court decision). The observations were characterized as potentially harmful to the reputation of members of an adjudicatory body and as not integral to the ratio. Ratio vs. Obiter - The Court treated the disparaging paragraph as obiter and unnecessary for adjudication rather than forming part of the operative ratio. Conclusions - The offending paragraph is to be set aside and expunged from the judgment to avoid unnecessary harm, while leaving the substantive decision intact.

Issue 2 - Standard for commenting on conduct of judicial/quasi-judicial functionaries: Legal framework - A superior Court must maintain sobriety, calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint when commenting on orders of other functionaries; harsh or disparaging remarks are impermissible unless necessary for decision. Precedent treatment - The Court expressly relied on and followed authority that (i) condemns gratuitous caustic observations that affect reputation and (ii) prescribes that adverse remarks should only be made when necessary and integral to the decision. Interpretation and reasoning - Applying these principles, the Court held that consistency in adjudicatory views is desirable but that an admonition about inconsistency, framed as a disparaging generalization about members of a judicial authority, was not required to decide the statutory-interpretation issue before it. The Court thus distinguished between legitimate judicial criticism necessary for decision and unnecessary censures that risk reputational harm. Ratio vs. Obiter - The articulation of the standard (sobriety and restraint) is treated as binding guidance for future conduct by courts and tribunals (ratio with prospective application to judicial discipline of language), while specific comments about the tribunal's conduct in that case were obiter and expunged. Conclusions - Courts should refrain from unnecessary disparaging remarks about adjudicators; where such remarks occur and are not essential to the judgment, they should be expunged to protect reputation without affecting the substantive adjudication.

Issue 3 - Effect of expunction on merits: Legal framework - Expunction of remarks is a remedial step distinct from rehearing or reversal of the substantive order; deletion is not to be construed as altering or endorsing the merits. Precedent treatment - Followed the established approach that deletion addresses reputational concerns and does not substitute for appellate remedies on merits. Interpretation and reasoning - The Court clarified that removing the last paragraph was purely to eliminate unnecessary, harmful language and explicitly stated that such expunction "should not be construed as a comment with regard to the merits of the case." Ratio vs. Obiter - The direction that expunction does not affect merits is ratio as applied to the parties and the judgment in question. Conclusions - Expunction resolves the reputational issue while preserving the substantive disposition; parties seeking merit relief must pursue appropriate appellate channels but cannot rely on expunction as a reinterpretation of substantive outcome.

Cross-references and practical guidance: The Court linked the expunction issue to the underlying statutory question (temporal operation of an explanation inserted by amendment) only insofar as demonstrating that the disparaging paragraph was not essential to resolution; therefore, where a judgment addresses statutory construction and also contains ancillary criticism of adjudicators, the two aspects must be evaluated separately and, if criticism is unnecessary, deleted without reopening the substantive decision.

Conclusions: The Court expunged the concluding paragraph containing disparaging observations as unnecessary and potentially harmful to the reputation of members of an adjudicatory authority, following established principles requiring judicial restraint in comments about persons or authorities before the Court; the expunction was expressly held not to affect the merits of the underlying decision.

---