The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court direction requiring a Principal Sub Judge to undergo training after the High Court criticised the trial judge's understanding of a will dispute, observing that appellate courts should guide subordinate courts through reasoned judgments rather than wield "the heavy-handed baton of superior authority."

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court's remarks against the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur, were unwarranted and contrary to settled principles governing judicial restraint while making adverse observations against judicial officers.

The case arose from a family dispute over the validity of an alleged will. While the trial court refused to accept the will as duly proved and passed a preliminary decree for partition, the Kerala High Court reversed that decision in a brief judgment. Besides setting aside the trial court's decree, the High Court observed that the trial judge had failed to understand the controversy, termed the judgment illustrative of deficiencies in the system, and directed that the officer be sent for training by the Kerala Judicial Academy.

Setting aside both the High Court judgment and its direction against the judicial officer, the Supreme Court found that the appellate court had failed to discharge its duty while reversing the trial court's findings.

The Bench noted that the High Court's judgment consisted of only a few pages, largely reproducing the trial court's reasoning, without independently analysing the evidence or explaining why the trial court had erred.

Emphasising the role of a first appellate court, the Supreme Court reiterated that it is the final court on facts and is required to independently reappreciate both facts and law while recording cogent reasons, particularly when reversing a trial court's findings.

The Court observed that permitting such orders to stand would send "a wrong message" that trial court judgments could be overturned without due effort or application of mind.

"The attitude to be adopted by appellate Courts should be that of a friend, philosopher and a guide rather than wielding the heavy-handed baton of superior authority pointing out errors committed by its underlings," the Bench observed.

Turning specifically to the direction sending the Principal Sub Judge for training, the Court questioned whether the High Court had kept in mind the settled law governing disparaging remarks against judges and public officials.

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim 1963 SCC OnLine SC 22 and subsequent precedents, the Court reiterated that adverse remarks should not be made unless they are necessary for deciding the case, supported by evidence, and the affected person has had an opportunity to explain.

Quoting Mohd. Naim, the Bench observed that "the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference."

The Court further recalled its earlier decisions cautioning that adverse remarks affecting the professional competence of judicial officers should not be passed lightly, as they have the potential to undermine judicial independence and deter officers from performing their duties fearlessly.

References were made to the observations in S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju (1987) 2 SCC 109 and State of Punjab v. Shikha Trading Co 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721

Finding the High Court's observations unsustainable, the Supreme Court set aside the entire judgment, including the direction against the Principal Sub Judge, and restored the first appeal to the Kerala High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

The Bench left all issues open for the parties to agitate before the High Court.