Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal seeking expungement of disparaging remarks made by a learned Judge of the Guwahati High Court against two doctors attached to Mahendra Mohan Choudhary Hospital, Guwahati. The remarks arose while disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by an accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused, Smt. Geeta Kalita, was arrested in connection with the murders and remanded to police custody. While in custody, she complained of severe abdominal pain and was admitted to MMCH, where the appellants treated her. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed her discharge from hospital and production before court, finding that continued hospitalisation was unnecessary. Aggrieved, the accused filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court constituted a medical board of four eminent doctors, who reported that the accused had no major illness except mild anemia and minor bowel irregularity. Relying on this report, the High Court dismissed the revision and made severe remarks against the appellant doctors, accusing them of manipulation, unethical conduct, and misuse of official status to thwart court proceedings. The core legal issues were whether the High Court judge violated natural justice by condemning the doctors without opportunity of being heard, whether the remarks were based on sufficient evidence, and whether they were necessary for the decision. The appellants argued that the medical board report did not necessarily falsify their earlier clinical diagnosis due to the time gap and improved condition, and that they had submitted an improved condition report on 25.8.1995. They contended that the judge failed to observe judicial restraint. The Supreme Court applied the three tests laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim: whether the person had opportunity to defend, whether there was evidence justifying the remarks, and whether the remarks were necessary for the decision. The Court found that the doctors were not parties to the revision petition and were given no opportunity to explain or defend themselves, violating the fundamental principle of natural justice. On the second test, the Court observed that the remarks were based solely on the medical board report, which differed from the doctors' earlier diagnosis, but there was no other material indicating ulterior motive. The Court held that a patently wrong finding alone cannot justify an inference of mala fides; the superior body or court must demonstrate additional materials before concluding an ulterior motive. The Court did not delve into whether the diagnosis was actually wrong, but proceeded on the assumption that the board was right. The third test was not examined because the first two were sufficient. The Court also emphasized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, sober, moderate, and reserved, and that higher forums require greater restraint. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and expunged the impugned remarks made by the High Court judge against the appellants. It reiterated the established norms of judicial propriety and the need to avoid intemperate language and disparaging remarks unless necessary for deciding the case. The decision primarily favored the appellants by quashing the adverse remarks.
Headnote
A) Judicial Discipline - Expunction of Remarks - Natural Justice - Not applicable - High Court judge made disparaging remarks that two doctors manipulated and motivated medical reports to mislead court and acted unethically, without giving them opportunity to be heard, although they were not parties to revision petition - Held that condemnation without hearing violates fundamental principle of natural justice; remarks expunged (Paras 6-7). B) Judicial Discipline - Basis for Adverse Remarks - Evidence on Record - Not applicable - High Court judge based adverse remarks solely on medical board report which differed from appellant doctors' earlier clinical diagnosis, without any other material showing ulterior motive - Held that a patently wrong finding alone cannot justify inference of mala fides; remarks unsupported by adequate evidence (Paras 8-10). C) Judicial Propriety - Restraint in Language - Sobriety and Moderation - Not applicable - Court reiterated that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, sober, moderate, and reserved, with higher forums requiring greater restraint - Held that impugned remarks were intemperate and inconsistent with judicial behaviour (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court judge erred in making disparaging remarks against the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard; whether the remarks were justified by evidence on record; whether the remarks were necessary for the decision of the case
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and expunged the impugned remarks made by the High Court judge against the appellants. It held that the remarks violated natural justice and were not supported by adequate material, and reiterated the need for judicial restraint.
Law Points
- Courts must not make disparaging remarks against persons not parties to proceedings without giving them an opportunity of being heard
- adverse remarks must be based on evidence on record and necessary for decision of case
- judicial pronouncements must be sober
- moderate
- and reserved
- a patently wrong finding alone cannot justify inference of ulterior motive without additional material
