Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 533, the Supreme Court emphasized and highlighted the importance of exercising judicial restraint as under:-

"12. It is true that the judges are flesh and blood mortals with individual personalities and with normal human traits. Still what remains essential in judging, Justice Felix Frankfurter said: [ The Judiciary and Constitutional Politics -- Views from the Bench, Mark W. Cannon and David M.O.'s Brien p. 27] "First and foremost, humility and an understanding of the range of the problems and (one's) own inadequacy in dealing with them, disinterestedness ... and allegiance to nothing except the effort to find (that) pass through precedent, through policy, through history, through (one's) own gifts of insights to the best judgment that a poor fallible creature can arrive at in that most difficult of all tasks, the adjudication between man and man, between man and state, through reason called law."

13. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process."

41. Judgments and orders passed by the courts are often permanent in nature, so is at times the stigma attached to a person suffered by virtue of an uncalled for remark unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. As adjudicatory force of the country, judicial restraint as warranted by law and judicial proceedings is one of the qualities of a judicial officer."

22. There is thus merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the Sessions Court erred in directing the Police Commissioner to direct disciplinary action. This was unwarranted, legally impermissible and a judicial overreach. Law on the contours of powers to be exercised by a Court viz-a- viz the Executive/Disciplinary Authorities is no longer res integra and is premised on the two pillars of judicial restraint and Separation of Powers. In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 683, the Supreme Court elucidated on the aspect of essence of judicial powers referring to Montesquieu's The Spirit of law as follows:-