Courts should be large hearted, ignore trivial misdemeanours of litigants, public servants: J&K High Court

Courts are expected to be large-hearted and ignore minor lapses on the part of litigants, lawyers, or public servants, observed the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently [Anu Charak vs UT of J&K and anr].

Justice Sanjay Dhar added that courts should avoid passing unnecessary strictures against public servants, more so when they have not been given an opportunity to explain their side of the matter.

"Normally, courts should avoid passing strictures and disparaging remarks against Government officials when they have not been afforded an opportunity of explaining or defending themselves. The adverse remarks/observation can be made by the courts only if it is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and when there is material on record to suggest complicity of the officers … Courts are expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanour of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant," the September 22 ruling said.

The judge made the observation while expunging certain disparaging remarks made by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba (JJB), against an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) for failing to be present for a hearing before the Board.

The APP had been assigned the charge of arguing cases before the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba. On September 8, she was also given an additional charge of appearing before the JJB due to the absence of the regular APP.

However, when a particular hearing before the Board took place, the APP was not present, as she was recording statements of prosecution witnesses in another case before the magistrate.

The JJB took strong objection to the APP's absence and passed an order criticising the APP and recommended that the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, take strict action against her.

Aggrieved, the APP filed a plea before the High Court to expunge the comments made against her by the JJB.

The High Court granted her relief and expunged the comments made by the JJB against the APP.

It noted that this was not a case where an accused was in jail and that the JJB could have afforded to adjourn the hearing by a day if the State's counsel was not present.

"Merely, because a public prosecutor has been unable to argue a matter or has sought time to prepare the brief does not call for passing of strictures against the said public prosecutor even if it is assumed that his/her conduct may not be upto the mark, that too in a case, where the accused was not behind the bars and heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day," the Court said.

The High Court further observed that the APP's absence from the JJB hearing was due to genuine professional preoccupation and that there was no evidence of any deliberate negligence or misconduct.

It noted that there was a communication gap between the JJB and the APP, which led the Board to make adverse comments against her. The Court pointed out that the APP was never given an opportunity to explain why should could not be present for the JJB hearing.

"Time and again this Court has cautioned the courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice. The Juvenile Justice Board has while recording the impugned remarks, neither put the petitioner to notice nor was it necessary to pass such remarks for disposal of the case. The disparaging remarks made in the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 by Juvenile Justice Board, Samba against the petitioner, therefore, deserve to be quashed," it held.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the APP's plea, and expunged the JJB's "uncalled for" remarks made against her.

Advocate Ayushman Kotwal appeared for the petitioner (APP).

[Read Order]