The Rajasthan High Court discouraged baseless allegations on judges, emphasizing judicial restraint during a petition against a temple trust management order. Rejecting the transfer request, the court urged petitioners to challenge decisions in higher courts.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RAJASTHAN: On 22nd February, the Rajasthan High Court delivered a poignant reminder about the importance of respecting judicial officers and the detrimental effects of casting unwarranted aspersions on them. Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati, presiding over the matter, emphasized the fine line between constructive criticism of judicial decisions and the inappropriate practice of maligning judges, which could undermine the justice system’s very foundation.
The court’s observations came during the hearing of a petition that challenged an order from a district court concerning the management of a temple trust. The petitioners sought to transfer their case to another judge, alleging bias and collusion between the presiding officer and a lawyer, particularly regarding the treatment of the service of summons in their suit.
ALSO READ: Andhra Pradesh HC Orders Action on Illegal Sand Mining by MOEF
Justice Bhati articulated the court’s stance on the matter, stating-
“Casting aspersions on the Judicial Officers is a practice which is required to be severely depreciated particularly when the judicial orders are challenged. Critical analysis of a judgment in right perspective has to be appreciated but casting allegations upon a Judge if allowed would hit at the root of the system of justice.”
This statement encapsulates the court’s view that while it is healthy to critically analyze judgments, accusing judges without basis threatens the integrity of the judicial system.
Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the High Court found that the trial court had correctly determined the service of summons to be incomplete, thereby justifying its refusal to interfere with the lower court’s decision. The High Court’s analysis led to the conclusion that the petitioners’ grievances stemmed from their unsuccessful attempt to have the summons service deemed complete, rather than any genuine misconduct by the judge.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief in Shiv Sena MLA’s Family Case
The court further clarified that dissatisfaction with a judicial decision does not warrant the transfer of a case to another court but should instead be addressed through appropriate legal challenges.
“Such practice (casting aspersions on a judge to seek a transfer of the case) is deprecated and in case the judicial order passed by the learned District Judge is not acceptable to the petitioners, then it is open for them to challenge the same on judicial side. It is expected from the lawyers to maintain all the restraint and not make allegations against a Presiding Officer,”
-the court added.
Reinforcing the expectation of professionalism and restraint from legal practitioners.
Additionally, the court addressed the petitioners’ mention of a complaint filed against the Presiding Officer, pending before the High Court’s Chief Justice. It was noted that the existence of such a complaint does not justify seeking remedies through judicial proceedings, highlighting the separation of disciplinary processes from judicial decision-making.
In its deliberations, the court also referenced the Judicial Officers Protection Act, emphasizing the principle of judicial immunity. This principle is pivotal for ensuring that judges can perform their duties without fear of personal repercussions, thereby maintaining judicial independence and integrity.
ALSO READ: Breaking|| Why Did Howrah Police Stand By? Calcutta High Court Demands Answers
Concluding the proceedings, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioners, payable to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur. This decision not only addressed the immediate issues at hand but also served as a broader statement on the respect and decorum that the judicial process demands.
Representing the petitioner, advocates CS Kotwani and Swati Shekhar.
