Restraint Must Be Exercised In Passing Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Judicial Officers While Hearing Appeals: Allahabad High Court

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has observed that in exercise of appellate powers, Courts must exercise caution and restraint in recording acerbic remarks against subordinate judicial officers.“We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct,” held Justice Prakash Padia.Observing that judges are mortals with flesh and blood and must exercise judicial restrain for effective administration of justice, the Court cited Justice Felix Frankfurter's view from The Judiciary and Constitutional Politics — Views from the Bench, Mark W. Cannon and David M.O.'s Brien “First and foremost, humility and an understanding of the range of the problems and (one's) own inadequacy in dealing with them, disinterestedness ... and allegiance to nothing except the effort to find (that) pass through precedent, through policy, through history, through (one's) own gifts of insights to the best judgment that a poor fallible creature can arrive at in that most difficult of all tasks, the adjudication between man and man, between man and state, through reason called law.”Petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Shamli. Two cases adjudicated by him were decided in appeal on 29.04.2025 and 09.05.2025, respectively, where adverse remarks were recorded. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Upon his representation being rejected, the petitioner approached the High Court. The Court relied on a catena of judgements to hold that disparaging remarks were not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct came into consideration before courts of law, unless it were absolutely necessary in the interest of justice. “Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in the findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre,” held the Apex Court in Brij Kishore Thakur v. Union of India. Relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in 'K' A Judicial Officer, the Court held that officers against whom such remarks had been passed were not without remedy. It was held that they may approach the High Court to seek expunction of objectionable remarks recorded against them. Further, it was held that as per the Supreme Court in Awni Kumar Upadhyay v High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors., no such remarks could be made against the judicial officers without granting them an opportunity of hearing to explain their conduct. Find the above to be absent in the present case, the writ was allowed.Case Title: Hemant Kumar Gupta v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [WRIT - C No. - 27326 of 2025]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Restraint Must Be Exercised In Passing Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Judicial Officers While Hearing Appeals: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags