Comments against lawyer based on personal perception of judge: Supreme Court expunges remarks made against advocate in Uttarakhand HC orders

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered for the expunction of certain remarks made against a lawyer by a Uttarakhand High Court judge, which appeared to be based on the "personal perception of the judge"(Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani)..The Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy passed the order in an appeal by a lawyer who has been practicing before the High Court for around 17 years. The order stated,"While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.".The present appeal sought expunction of certain observations made against the lawyer by the High Court judge in four cases in which the former was representing one of the contesting parties.One of the comments made regarding the counsel in the one of the judgments by the High Court reads as follow:"I express my deep anguish and hesitantly refraining myself from taking any action against the counsel for the petitioner for producing only part of document and placing reliance on the same for procuring an interim order by suppressing material fact."Another comment made in one of the judgments read:"...this Court is of the view that the tenacity of argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant was in a manner as if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole, which this Court will not hesitate to remark that was a brutal assassination of time for those other litigants, whose matters were pending consideration on the said date before this Court. 'It further reflected that as if it was not an argument for the case but rather for the visitors' gallery...".Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the remarks made by the judge against the appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him. He also submitted that the comments are neither essential nor necessary for the Court’s verdict in the concerned cases. Such adverse comments, the Senior Counsel contended, will not only undermine his client's professional reputation, but would also impact his standing and practice as a lawyer..Rohatgi further stated that since the judge, before his elevation in 2017, was a member of the same Bar as the appellant and both were rival counsel in several matters, the comments may have emanated from personal prejudice..The Court noted that the observations by the High Court judge "appear to be based on the personal perception of the learned Judge.".It was further noted that before recording the adverse comments, the High Court did not give any opportunity to the appellant to put forth his explanation. "The remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on the professional integrity of the appellant. Such condemnation of the Counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be missing in the offending comments," the judgment stated..While ordering that the remarks against the lawyer be expunged, the Court held that if the comments remain unexpunged, it will be a cross that the appellant will have to bear, all his life..[Read Judgment]