SC Asks Lower Courts to be ‘Extremely Cautious’ While Passing Adverse Remarks Against Parties

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 22nd March. The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it is crucial for courts to be “extremely cautious” when making adverse remarks about the parties involved, and that remarks made in courts now have far-reaching ramifications and can cause great harm to the reputation due to live broadcast of proceedings.

The Supreme Court stated that the adoption of virtual hearings and live telecast of open court proceedings has ushered in a new era of accessibility and transparency in the legal system in general and the judicial system.

It stated that while this “never before seen transparency” in the judicial system has many benefits, it also imposes a higher standard of responsibility on judges when conducting such court proceedings.

These observations were made by a bench of justices Krishna Murari and A Amanullah in their judgement quashing an order passed in July last year by the Karnataka High Court, which had made some disparaging remarks, including against a senior IPS officer, during the hearing of a bail petition in a bribery case.

The bench noted that the single judge of the high court had also directed the CBI to investigate one of the appellants’ past records.

“Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have ramifications that are far reaching, and as can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the reputation of the parties involved,” it said.

“In such a circumstance, it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice,” the bench said.

It stated that changes in the judiciary, which have ushered in a new era of accessibility and transparency as a result of the adoption of virtual hearings and live telecast of open court proceedings, have made the courts more accessible to the common man than ever before.

“The limitations of physical infrastructure, that has constrained the courts to a physical location, has often been cited as one of the main roadblocks in the path towards access to justice. This roadblock, however, has now been cleared due to the availability of technology and the adoption of the same,” the top court said.

While considering whether adverse remarks made by the high court during the bail proceedings are liable to be expunged, the bench noted that the high court had made adverse remarks against the appellants during the bail proceedings on two separate occasions in July last year, which is said to have caused great harm to their reputation.

“Due to the proceedings being broadcasted on the high court’s YouTube channel, the said comments have received wide publicity, and several media and news outlets have picked up on those comments and reported the same,” it said.

The bench said that bail proceedings, unlike a full criminal trial, are burdened with the task of only forming a prima facie view on the merits of the case and in such a circumstance when the evidence is not fully analyzed and a presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of the accused, “the courts must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks against the accused”.

“This becomes especially important in cases where the party against whom the remarks are passed do not have a lis in the said proceedings, for such comments, especially if passed by constitutional courts, can cause great injury to the reputation of the parties at the receiving end of such remarks. This burden of caution on the courts has been held in a catena of judgments by this court,” it said.

The bench stated that the high court’s remarks against the IPS officer appear to be unreasonable and without justification.

According to the statement, the IPS officer is simply a government employee of the department conducting the investigation and has no personal involvement with the case.

The apex court also stated that no evidence was presented against him and no opportunity was provided for him to explain himself, but “scathing and egregious remarks” were still made against him.

Regarding another appellant, the bench said even though he is an accused in the alleged crime but was not a party to the bail proceedings before the high court.

The Supreme Court stated that the high court’s actions during the bail proceedings of a third party were “manifestly arbitrary and unjust,” and that the high court should have limited itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the bail.

“A court of bail, especially in cases where the bail is sought for by a third party, is not a court that has all the relevant information to pass an order on the merits of an unconnected party, and such an order, if passed, has the potential to cause great harm to the said party without them being afforded an actual and meaningful opportunity to defend themselves,” the bench said, while expunging the adverse remarks and quashing the high court order.