The Supreme Court recently expunged adverse remarks made by Uttarakhand High Court’s Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma against an advocate in two orders, deeming them unjustified and illegal. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta held that such comments were unjustified and illegal.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently expunged certain adverse remarks made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court against an advocate in two separate orders, passed in the case of Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others.
A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta reviewed the orders and concluded that the comments made by Justice Sharma regarding the advocate’s conduct were wholly unjustified and lacked legal basis.
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial officers should refrain from making personal remarks against lawyers, especially when such remarks have no relevance to the issues being adjudicated. The expunged remarks were deemed unnecessary and inappropriate, with the apex court affirming the importance of maintaining professional decorum in judicial proceedings.
Read Also: Allahabad HC: Contempt of Court Orders Appealable Only to SC
The Court added,
“We have gone through the orders dated 01-12-2020 & 07-12- 2021 and have carefully examined the circumstances in which the observations were made by the learned Judge. Having considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Judge, we are of the opinion that neither the conduct, nor the circumstance warranted recording of the remarks. These remarks are unjustified and illegal,”
The Court also voiced its disapproval of the judge’s recurring tendency to make adverse remarks against lawyers, noting that the same High Court judge had previously made critical comments about another lawyer in an earlier case.
The Court added,
“We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of. In view of the fact that perception of the same learned Judge has already been noticed in Neeraj Garg (supra), we do not need to re-examine the approach adopted by the learned Judge even in this case,”
The Bench was hearing appeals filed by the advocate challenging the adverse remarks made against him in two orders dated December 1, 2020, and December 7, 2021, by the Uttarakhand High Court. The lawyer sought to have these remarks, made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, expunged.
Read Also: Karnataka HC Response: State’s Alleged Violation of ‘Contempt of Courts Act’ Orders
In the contested orders, Justice Sharma criticized the lawyer for leaving the courtroom during proceedings, stating that the advocate had exited “without even extending the courtesy of informing the Court” that he was attending to other cases.
On September 24, the Supreme Court granted the lawyer’s plea, ruling that the advocate’s conduct did not warrant such critical remarks from the High Court. The Court found no basis for the harsh observations made against the lawyer.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court referred to a 2021 judgment in which it had similarly expunged remarks made by the same High Court judge against another lawyer. At that time, the Court had noted that the High Court judge’s comments seemed to stem from personal perception rather than objective evaluation.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
