Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Judicial Officer's Plea Against High Court Calling Her Negligent

The Supreme Court today refused to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court order making adverse remarks against the conduct of a judicial officer who overlooked the fact that accused had not complied with earlier directions while seeking for bail. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition by the Judicial officer challenging the adverse observations made by the High Court of Rajasthan, of her dealing with a bail plea. The High Court, in its order, made adverse remarks against the officer, calling the officer 'negligent'.The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was not aware that the previous bail was denied to the accused. Justice Bagchi interjected, pointing out that the officer merely glossed over the 'cryptic statement' of the accused instead of dismissing the bail application. "That is where your dereliction comes. High Court direction in 2007 requires a declaration by the petitioner of the previous applications and left it. A cryptic statement is made, you gloss over it and go ahead with the hearing." The Counsel countered that the accused made a misdeclaration. Justice Bagchi then said that the officer failed to determine whether the previous order of 2007 passed by the High Court, requiring the accused to furnish past orders, was complied with or not. "You should have dismissed the application on that premise....you are not in a role of fact finding - you are to see whether the direction of 10.7.2007 is complied with and if the petition is not as per the rules, you should have dismissed it on that score." When the counsel reiterated that the order calls the officer 'negligent', Justice Bagchi replied that "even we feel she is negligent".The Counsel argued that the officer had submitted an explanation before the High Court stating that the trial court orders were not received, and the accused also concealed the fact of the previous rejection of the bail application. Justice Bagchi replied, "Naturally, the accused will conceal; it is the judge who will supervise whether it is as per the rules or not ....we are not concerned whether you should be the gatekeeper; you won't allow the application to be heard till that declaration is made...to enable yourself to the (inaudible) that is negligent, if you misread intentionally, its a case of corruption- and that is where the judge makes a distinction. It's a case of dereliction."The CJI also weighed in to add, "and benefit has been given to that extent." The bench then dismissed the plea as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court. Related - Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Passing Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officers By HC In Judgments

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Judicial Officer's Plea Against High Court Calling Her Negligent

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags