Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.75 seconds)K.P. Tiwari vs State Of M.P on 29 October, 1993
In K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994
SC 1031, where the High Court reversed the order passed by
the lower court making remarks about interestedness and
motive of the lower court in passing the unmerited order, this
Court observed that one of the functions of the higher court is
either to modify or set aside erroneous orders passed by the
lower courts. Our legal system acknowledges fallibility of
judges. It has to be kept in mind that a subordinate judicial
officer works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a
psychological pressure -- contestants and lawyers breathing
down his neck. He does not enjoy the detached atmosphere
of the higher court. Every error, however gross it may be,
should not be attributed to improper motives. The Judges of
the High Court have a responsibility to ensure judicial
discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. No
greater damage can be done to the administration of justice
and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary if the
higher courts express lack of faith in the subordinate judiciary
for some reason or other. That amounts to destruction of
judiciary from within.
Kashi Nath Roy vs State Of Bihar on 18 April, 1996
In Kashi Nath Roy v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC
3240, this Court observed under a similar circumstance that
in our system appellate and revisional courts have been set up
with the presupposition that the lower courts in some measure
of cases can go wrong in decision making in law and in fact.
The higher courts have been established to correct errors. In
cases where intolerable error is pointed out, it is functionally
required to correct the error in an appropriate case and in a
manner befitting maintaining dignity of the court and
independence of the judiciary. The higher court should convey
its message in the judgment to the officer concerned through a
process of reasoning, essentially persuasive, reasonable,
mellowed but clear and result oriented and rarely a rebuke.
Braj Kishore Thakur vs Union Of India And Others on 24 February, 1997
In series of other cases also, this court disfavoured the
practice of passing strictures or orders against the
subordinate officers. (See : Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of
India, AIR 1997 SC 1157; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N.
Sarma, AIR 1968 SC 453)
In Lunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, AIR
1999 SC 2881, this Court held that wrong exercise of
jurisdiction by a quasi judicial authority or mistake of law or
wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating
disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the Judicial Officer
conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or
integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to
show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or
he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had
passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by
virtue of its power under Art. 235 of the Constitution may
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such
circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all
levels have to administer justice without fear or favour.
Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are
very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making
adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and
subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would
ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level.
Alok Kumar Roy vs Dr. S. N. Sarma And Anr on 19 October, 1967
In series of other cases also, this court disfavoured the
practice of passing strictures or orders against the
subordinate officers. (See : Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of
India, AIR 1997 SC 1157; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N.
Sarma, AIR 1968 SC 453)
In Lunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, AIR
1999 SC 2881, this Court held that wrong exercise of
jurisdiction by a quasi judicial authority or mistake of law or
wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating
disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the Judicial Officer
conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or
integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to
show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or
he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had
passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by
virtue of its power under Art. 235 of the Constitution may
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such
circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all
levels have to administer justice without fear or favour.
Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are
very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making
adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and
subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would
ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level.
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. And Others on 6 August, 1999
In series of other cases also, this court disfavoured the
practice of passing strictures or orders against the
subordinate officers. (See : Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of
India, AIR 1997 SC 1157; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N.
Sarma, AIR 1968 SC 453)
In Lunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, AIR
1999 SC 2881, this Court held that wrong exercise of
jurisdiction by a quasi judicial authority or mistake of law or
wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating
disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the Judicial Officer
conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or
integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to
show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or
he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had
passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by
virtue of its power under Art. 235 of the Constitution may
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such
circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all
levels have to administer justice without fear or favour.
Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are
very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making
adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and
subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would
ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988
In Iswar Chandra Jain v. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1395, this Court observed that while
exercising control over subordinate judiciary under Art. 235 of
the Constitution, the High Court is under a Constitutional
obligation to guide and protect subordinate judicial officers.
An honest and strict judicial officer is likely to have
adversaries. If complaints are entertained in trifling matters
and if the High Court encourages anonymous complaints, no
judicial officer would feel secure and it would be difficult for
him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent
manner. It is imperative that the High Court should take
steps to protect honest judicial officers by ignoring ill-
conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous
lawyers and litigants.