Demoralising: Supreme Court cautions High Courts against disparaging trial judges

The Supreme Court has recently cautioned High Courts against the growing tendency to publicly criticise subordinate judicial officers.[Shuvendu Saha v. State of West Bengal].A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stressed that supervisory jurisdiction should not be used to pass disparaging remarks, but rather to guide and protect the district judiciary."The High Court, being a Court of record in the State, is expected to act as the guardian of the officers in the district judiciary. While finding infirmities in the order passed by a judicial officer, the immediate reaction ought not to be to make adverse or disparaging observations against the concerned judicial officer in a judicial dispensation,” the Court said.The Bench added that such disparaging remarks or strictures may ruin the career of a judicial officer and demoralise the district judiciary as a whole.It further went on to emphasise that the power of superintendence conferred on High Courts by Article 227 of the Constitution should not be used as a tool of oppression but as a mechanism for nurturing and guiding judicial officers in the State..The observations came while dealing with an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had set aside the grant of bail to an accused in a criminal case arising out of a tenancy dispute.The High Court had set aside the Magistrate’s 2018 bail order on procedural grounds and made observations regarding the concerned judicial officer. It had also called for an explanation from the judicial officer and directed that the order be placed in the officer’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR). It had also observed that the conduct of the judicial officer amounted to “jurisdictional insubordination.”Aggrieved by the High Court order, the accused approached the Supreme Court..The top court directed that all adverse observations and directions against the judicial officer shall stand quashed and set aside. It observed that interference with the bail order after several years was unjustified and that the remarks against the judicial officer were unwarranted.The Bench also underscored that remarks against judicial officers can have serious consequences on their careers and may also impact the morale of the district judiciary.It further said that some High Courts already have an in-house administrative mechanism to deal with errors or issues in orders passed by trial judges while exercising supervisory powers.Under this system, comments on the quality of such orders can be written in a remark slip and sent to the administrative judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary action.The Court referred to the practice followed in the Rajasthan High Court and said that similar systems can be adopted in other High Courts.This would ensure that concerns about judicial functioning are handled administratively, not via judicial orders, the Court added.It also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to be placed before their respective Chief Justices for information and appropriate action.On the merits of the matter, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the accused..[Read Order]