BomHC; Judges should be protected from malicious personal allegations
disapproval of the practice which appears to be prevailing in the
Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of this court. The Registry
there does not seem to think it necessary to object to the
impleadment of the Hon'ble Judges comprising a Division Bench
or a Judge sitting singly as party respondents to review petitions
or applications in that nature.
We have not been shown any rule which requires such
impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that hereafter,
the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon parties/litigants and
their advocates deleting the names of Hon'ble Judges as party
respondents to review petitions and until such deletion, the
matter should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and their
advocates to delete such names and references to the Hon'ble
Judges and personal allegations against them, if the same are not
deleted by carrying out appropriate amendments, the Registry
shall append a note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly
that parties and lawyers were asked to delete such references,
but there being no compliance, the matter comes to be placed
before an appropriate court for directions. That would enable the
appropriate court to dismiss such proceedings only on this
ground. Just as there is enough justification for discontinuance of
such practice because none can insist on such impleadment, its
discontinuance upholds a salutary principle. The sanctity and
purity of court proceedings lies in protection to Judges and
presiding officers against personal attacks by litigants and
lawyers on them. It is too well settled to require any reference to
a judgment or a precedent that there is freedom to be critical of a
judgment, but the language of such criticism must be sobre and
respectful. The discourse of law is the discourse of civility. Even
in the memo of review petitions or appeals, criticism of the
judgment should not reflect any personal attack of the litigant or
the draftsman on the Judge or presiding officer. None can claim a
freedom to mount an attack, and that too contemptuous, on a
Judge while criticising or assailing his judgment. If this much
protection to the Judge is not ensured or there is no safeguard
against malicious personal allegations, no court or no Judge can
function fearlessly and independently. Sometimes, a court is
required to be severely critical of the conduct of parties before it.
It does not demean or show any disrespect to them much less
personally, but ensures that the hand of the law is strong enough,
and its arm long enough to punish every guilty person howsoever
high he may be and to reach injustice wherever it is found.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
Common Citizen of India }
(Common Man) }
through Rakesh Omprakash }
Agarwal,
versus
The Hon'ble High Court }
Judicature of Bombay through }
Registrar General, High Court, }
Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai, }
Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai. }
2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
3. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Abhay Shriniwasji Oka }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
4. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Anil Kumar Menon }
High Court, through Registrar }
General,
5. State Government of }
Maharashtra, through Chief }
Secretary,
6. The Government of India }
through Chief Secretary, }
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. PATEL, JJ.
Pronounced on 6th May, 2016
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/bomhc-judges-should-be-protected-from.html
