Srinagar:The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has cautioned courts to refrain from passing disparaging remarks against public servants unless absolutely necessary.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made the remarks while quashing disparaging comments recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba, against an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), noting that “heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day, particularly when the accused was not in custody.”
Justice Dhar recorded that courts need to be tolerant, magnanimous and largehearted in dealing with such minor lapses of public servants unless it is absolutely necessary.
The plea by the aggrieved officer before court submitted that on that day he was handed over the additional charge of APP as the regular prosecutor of the Board was on leave.
He had stated that he was already engaged before the Court of the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba, recording statements of prosecution, a process that continued until the court hours expired.
“As a result, the officer could not attend the Juvenile Justice Board to argue a pending bail application. Treating this absence as dereliction of duty, the Board passed disparaging remarks against the APP and directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, for appropriate action,” the plea stated.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while examining the settled law gave reference to Supreme Court directives in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 12 SCC 689, where the Court noted that such remarks should never be made lightly, as they may cause serious damage to the character and integrity of an individual.
The Apex Court had held that before recording strictures, the court must consider whether the person concerned had an opportunity to explain, whether evidence justified such remarks, and whether they were necessary for the decision of the case.
In the instant case, Justice Dhar noted that the sequence of events showed little more than a communication gap between the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner.
“The Board, without ascertaining the reasons for her absence and without affording her an opportunity to explain, passed adverse remarks which were neither necessary nor justified for deciding the bail application,” court said.
“Time and again this Court has cautioned the courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice”, Justice Dhar remarked.
The Court said that merely because a public prosecutor has been unable to argue a matter or has sought time to prepare the brief does not call for passing of strictures that too in a case, where the accused was not behind the bars and heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day.
Justice Dhar while allowing the plea directed that the disparaging remarks made in the order be expunged, and the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, are restrained from taking any further action against the petitioner based on them.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
