Whether Superior court is bound to give reasoning for passing adverse remark against lower court?

Awani Kumar Upadhyay v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, (2013) 12 SCC 392

Judiciary
Adverse remarks against other Judges - Disparaging remarks, observations and strictures - Against lower judiciary - To
be avoided - Reasons for - Expunction of remarks, when to be allowed - Held, higher courts every day come across
orders of lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside - The legal system
acknowledges fallibility of Judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions - Inasmuch as lower judicial officers mostly
work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have facilities which
are available in higher courts, therefore, adverse remarks/observations and strictures against them are to be avoided,
particularly if judicial officer has no occasion to put forth his defence - Further, if adverse material complained of is wholly
irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on records will cause serious harm to persons to whom it refers and its
expunction will not affect reasons for judgment or order, request for expunging such remarks is to be allowed - Hence,
reiterated, harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct
comes into consideration before courts of law, unless it is really for the decision of a case as an integral part thereof,


Adverse remarks against other Judges - Expunction of adverse remarks - Adverse remarks passed against subordinate
judicial officer by superior court - No logical reasoning given by superior court as to what was fault of officer and no
finding as to why it disagreed with reasoning given by officer - Strictures passed, neither warranted nor in conformity with
settled law propounded by Supreme Court - Expunction directed, 

Print Page