Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the State of Uttar Pradesh's application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to expunge certain derogatory remarks made by a judge against the police force. The case arose from a criminal trial in which the Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi convicted four accused persons under Sections 452 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer, Mohammad Naim, was found to have fabricated the time of lodging the first information report. On appeal, the High Court set aside the convictions and directed a notice to Mohammad Naim under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. When Mohammad Naim apologized, the High Court judge, Mulla J., accepted the apology but made severe observations against the entire police force, including statements that the police force was an 'Augean stable', that no lawless group in the country had a crime record comparable to the Indian Police Force, and that 'where every fish barring perhaps a few stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks'. The State of Uttar Pradesh, feeling aggrieved, applied under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for expunction of these remarks, arguing that they brought the entire police force into contempt, lowered its prestige, interfered with administration, and injured the security of the State. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the State was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi, and that the remarks required only a clarification that they referred to the Uttar Pradesh police. The State's application for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) was rejected, but special leave was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the State Government is an aggrieved party and is entitled to move the High Court under Section 561-A because it exercises executive power over the police department. The Court emphasized that Section 561-A preserves the inherent powers of the High Court, which include the power to expunge remarks to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, but that such jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised in exceptional cases. The Court also stressed that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, sober, moderate, and reserved, and that judges and magistrates must perform their functions freely and fearlessly but with proper restraint. The Court found that the remarks against the entire police force were not justified by the facts of the case, were not necessary for the disposal of the matter, and should be expunged. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed expunction of the three impugned remarks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - State Government as aggrieved party for remarks against police department - The State Government exercises executive power over police department and can be aggrieved by observations against its department or officers; State is juristic person entitled to move High Court under Section 561-A; Held that State had locus standi and application maintainable. B) Criminal Procedure - Expunction of Judicial Remarks - Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - High Court's inherent power to expunge remarks to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice - The inherent jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised in exceptional cases; Held that High Court can expunge remarks made by it or lower court if necessary to prevent abuse or secure ends of justice. C) Judicial Discipline - Judicial Restraint - Not under any specific act - Judges and magistrates must maintain freedom and fearlessness but must be guided by justice, fair-play and restraint; judicial pronouncements must be judicial, sober, moderate, reserved - Remarks against entire police force based on no evidence and not necessary for disposal should be expunged; Held that remarks were unjustified and ordered expunged. D) Constitutional Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - Articles 134 and 136 of the Constitution of India - Special leave to appeal against High Court order rejecting certificate - State unsuccessfully sought certificate under Article 134(1)(c), then obtained special leave under Article 136; Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal; Held appeal allowed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had locus standi to move the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for expunction of remarks made by a judge against the police force; whether the High Court should expunge the remarks as not justified and not necessary for disposal of the case.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Allahabad High Court dated October 23, 1961 dismissing application under Section 561-A set aside; State Government held to be aggrieved party with locus standi; High Court has inherent power to expunge remarks; the three impugned remarks directed to be expunged from judgment of Mulla J. as they were not justified, not necessary and brought entire police force into disrepute.
Law Points
- State Government is an aggrieved party for remarks against its police department
- Section 561-A CrPC preserves existing inherent powers of High Court
- High Court can expunge remarks to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice
- judicial pronouncements must be judicial
- sober
- moderate and reserved
- remarks not necessary for disposal and not based on evidence should be expunged.
