The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
(6) The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the court has jurisdiction to expunge the remarks. My attention was invited by Mr. N.S. Mehta to the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nairm . I may profitably make reference to certain observations made in para 10. These are as follows:- "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. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons of authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks, and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve."