The Supreme Court has strongly cautioned against false, anonymous and motivated complaints filed to harass trial judges, saying such acts must invite contempt proceedings. It directed that lawyers involved in engineering such complaints should also face strict disciplinary action by Bar Councils.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over the growing trend of false, anonymous and deliberately planned complaints being made against members of the trial judiciary. The Court warned that such practices are dangerous for the justice system and must lead to strict legal action, including contempt of court proceedings and disciplinary action against advocates who are found responsible.
A Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan observed that not only unhappy litigants, but also some “mischievous elements” within the Bar have started using complaints as a tool to threaten and pressure judicial officers. The Court noted that these intimidatory tactics are aimed at browbeating judges and interfering with their independent functioning.
ALSO READ: “Supreme Court Strikes Down Delhi HC’s Contempt Review Order, Calls It Invalid”
The Supreme Court held that strong action under the law must be taken against anyone found to have filed false or frivolous complaints against judicial officers. It stated that in appropriate cases, such action should include contempt of court proceedings.
The Bench further directed that when the person behind such complaints is a member of the Bar, the High Court should not stop at contempt action alone but must also refer the matter to the Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings. It emphasised that Bar Councils must deal with such references without delay.
At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that genuine complaints against judicial officers must not be ignored. It held that if allegations disclose real misconduct and are found to be prima facie true, then prompt disciplinary action must follow.
The Court cautioned that no leniency should be shown where charges are proved. It also observed that in cases where criminal prosecution of a judicial officer is justified, the High Court should not hesitate to initiate such proceedings. According to the Court, this approach is necessary to maintain public trust in the justice delivery system and to remove errant elements from the judiciary.
These observations were made while allowing an appeal filed by senior judicial officer Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who had challenged his removal from service by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the removal order, along with the orders passed by the appellate authority and the High Court.
The appellant had been removed from service after completing 27 years of unblemished judicial service. The action against him was taken solely on the basis of four bail orders passed by him during his tenure. The High Court had held that in those four cases, the appellant failed to expressly mention Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, which lays down twin conditions for granting bail.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that in 14 other bail orders passed by the appellant, he had clearly referred to the same statutory provision. This, according to the Court, showed that the judicial officer was fully aware of the legal requirements.
The Bench found that the conclusion of misconduct was drawn only because Section 59-A was not expressly mentioned in four orders, without any material to show that the bail orders were influenced by extraneous considerations.
The Court categorically held that mere errors of judgment or passing an incorrect order cannot, by themselves, become the basis for disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against a judicial officer. It reiterated that every case must be examined on its own facts and circumstances and that no rigid or absolute rule can be applied in such matters.
The Supreme Court further noted that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the bail orders were passed with mala fide intent or for any improper purpose. It observed that the prosecution had accepted all 18 bail orders and had not challenged even a single one before higher courts. The public prosecutor who appeared in those cases also confirmed that the State had not objected to the grant of bail.
The Bench also pointed out that the original complaint appeared to be mainly directed against the stenographer, who had been posted at the concerned court even before the appellant took charge. This, according to the Court, further weakened the case against the judicial officer.
Emphasising the importance of judicial independence, the Supreme Court observed that a fearless trial judge is essential for the rule of law to survive. It acknowledged that trial judges work under tremendous pressure, handle heavy workloads, and are often required to decide a large number of cases every day. In such circumstances, the Court noted, disgruntled litigants may attempt to settle personal scores by making baseless allegations.
ALSO READ: Sloganeering Against Judge: Kerala High Court Closed Contempt Case Against Lawyer
Holding that the findings of the inquiry were perverse and unsupported by evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had committed a serious error in upholding the removal of the appellant from service.
Granting complete relief, the Court directed that Nirbhay Singh Suliya shall be treated as having continued in service until he attained the age of superannuation. It ordered the State to pay him full back wages along with all consequential service benefits. The Court further directed that the amount be released within eight weeks and carry interest at the rate of six percent.
Case Title:
Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Click Here to Read More Reports on Contempt
