On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court nullified the comments made by an additional district judge (fast track) in Bareilly, where he had commended Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in an order related to the 2010 Bareilly riots case. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, presiding over a single-judge bench, described the remarks as “unnecessary” and noted that they included “political implications and subjective opinions.”
The Allahabad High Court took a definitive stance on maintaining neutrality and objectivity within the judiciary. On Tuesday, the court made a decisive move by expunging comments made by a judge that were seen as overly favorable towards Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, reflecting on the imperative for judicial officers to remain impartial and refrain from displaying personal or political biases in their orders.
Also Read- Nazul Land Policy: Allahabad High Court To Review UP Government’s Ordinance (lawchakra.in)
The issue arose following remarks embedded in a March 5th order by Additional Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, which contained expressions of political overtones and personal sentiments that were not pertinent to the case at hand. The High Court, under the guidance of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, highlighted the inappropriateness of such commentary, asserting,
“It is not expected of a judicial officer to express or depict personal or preconceived notions in orders.”
Justice Mishra underscored the public nature of judicial orders and the potential for misinterpretation by the general populace. He emphasized the importance of judicial discretion stating,
“The judicial order is meant for public consumption and such type of order is likely to be misconstrued by the masses. It is expected from a judicial officer that he should use very guarded expression while focusing upon the issue in hand and should not use any observation which is tangent or alien to the core issue.”
The remarks in question saw Judge Diwakar extolling CM Yogi Adityanath as an ideal example of a devout individual occupying a powerful position, coupled with criticisms of political parties’ alleged appeasement strategies. These comments, although made in the context of summoning Muslim cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan regarding the 2010 Bareilly riots, diverged significantly from the legal matters at hand.
The court had said,
“The police post was set on fire and the houses of Hindus were set ablaze and women were treated indecently. Therefore, in the interest of justice, an FIR has been lodged against the accused Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Thus, the grounds for summoning for trial are found sufficient.”
Also Read-“Congress Escaped Income Is More Than Rs 520 Crore”: IT Department Tells Delhi HC (lawchakra.in)
In the contested order, Diwakar labeled Khan as the primary instigator behind the riots and criticized the lack of charges against him despite what he deemed sufficient evidence. Khan’s alleged incendiary speech and its repercussions were central to the judge’s argument for his summoning.
However, the controversy stemmed not from the legal proceedings but from the judge’s subjective assertions intertwined with the legal narrative. Following this, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan challenged the trial court’s decision in the High Court, leading to the current review and subsequent expunging of the contentious remarks.
While the High Court took steps to rectify the perceived bias in the order, it maintained a firm stance on the ongoing legal process against Khan. Despite refusing immediate relief concerning the non-bailable warrant issued for Khan, the court provided a timeframe for him to appear before the trial court and seek bail, underlining the procedural adherence to the law.
This incident brings to the forefront the critical balance between personal beliefs and professional duties within the judiciary. It serves as a reminder of the legal community’s ongoing struggle to uphold the principles of justice, impartiality, and restraint. The representation of Khan by Senior Advocate Satish Trivedi and Advocate Sheshadri Trivedi underscores the legal intricacies and the multifaceted nature of the case.
As the matter stands, the legal proceedings will continue, with the judiciary’s integrity and the importance of unbiased legal discourse remaining at the heart of the discussion.