The Hindu : National : Avoid carping criticism of witnesses, Supreme Court tells lower courts

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Avoid carping criticism of witnesses, Supreme Court tells lower courts

Legal Correspondent

“Judges must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible”

Judicial restraints necessary for orderly administration of justice
Disparaging strictures may result in injustice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked trial courts and the High Courts not to make sweeping remarks or observations against witnesses or about the conduct of the parties concerned.

“It cannot be overlooked that judicial restraints and discipline are equally necessary for orderly administration of justice,” a Bench comprising Justices C.K. Thakker and P. Sathasivam said, directing deletion of certain passages from a trial court judgment in a dowry death case.

Quoting a judgment of the former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the Bench said, “Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed on any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.”

Citing another judgment, the Bench said, “The judges have the absolute and unchallenged control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses.”

It said: “We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction in any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Thakker said, “One must always keep in view the golden advice given by Justice S.K. Das in 1964: if there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court.”

In the instant case, a trial court in Punjab sentenced Kishan Singh and his wife Bachni Rani to seven-year imprisonment for the death of their daughter-in-law Reeta Kumari (who committed suicide due to dowry harassment). The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

Remarks deleted

Dismissing the appeal against this May 4, 2005 judgment, the Bench said, “It is unfortunate that the trial court has made a caustic remark that there was falsehood in the evidence of a witness. It may be that the witness committed some mistake in giving evidence. If that part of the evidence is not consistent with the facts on record, the court may not accept it. But only for that reason, the court should not make disparaging remarks.”

The Bench ordered deletion of the remarks and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the two accused.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News Update

Stories in this Section