‘The incidental observations made by the Court in a judicial order while adjudicating the dispute between the parties remains the same as that of a Judgment delivered in an exercise of jurisdiction.’
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed plea of Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking compensation of Re 1 from Justice SJ Kathawalla for making some prejudicial and defamatory observations about him in an order disposing a case, in which he had appeared for a party.
A bench of Justice Shantanu Kemkar and Justice Nitin W Sambre observed that the incidental observations made by the Court in a judicial order while adjudicating the dispute between the parties remains the same as that of a Judgment delivered in an exercise of jurisdiction.
The reliefs sought in the writ petition filed by the lawyer are as follows:
The bench referring to judgment in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs State of Maharashtra observed that the court while pronouncing a judicial verdict, in relation to the matter brought before it, had made those observations, the same cannot be said that there is a violation of his fundamental rights.
“The learned Judge was discharging his judicial function pursuant to power and authority vested in him. While doing so, the observations made against the petitioner, if any are in a judicial order where the purpose is to discharge the function and duties as a judge in the process of administration of justice. As a consequence of the observations made in the Judgment of Supreme Court, the observations made in the impugned Judgment of learned Single Judge is held to be not amounting to any Constitutional infirmity. The very object of deciding the issue canvassed is to deal with the controversy brought before it and nothing more,” the court said.
Holding the writ petition as not maintainable, the bench said: “There is no presumption in law that while a judicial decision is pronounced by the Judge of Competent Jurisdiction in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication, the observations therein affects the fundamental rights. It is also required to be noted that the observations in the order under reference are of collateral nature while deciding the dispute between the parties brought before the Court. In that view of the matter, the jurisdiction of the Judge to pass an order as is sought to be assailed in the present petition can be challenged in an Appeal as the matter is decided on merits. The character of the order referred to in the present proceedings passed by the learned Judge may be in a matter directly in an issue between the parties or by incidentally to make adjudication of the dispute between the parties as a part of process of fair and effective justice.”