In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline, the Chhattisgarh High Court has expunged adverse remarks made against a Deputy Collector by a revisional court. The court held that making castigating comments against a judicial officer without affording a prior opportunity of hearing is unjust and violates settled legal principles.
The case involved Yugal Kishor Urawasha, who, while serving as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Janjgir-Champa, had decided a dispute over crop cutting and land possession under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In 2017, he directed one party to return the crops to the other and not to disturb their possession.
This order was challenged in a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge. In June 2018, the revisional court set aside the SDM’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. Crucially, in its ruling, the revisional court made strong adverse remarks against the petitioner’s conduct and directed that a copy of its order be sent to the principal secretary of the legal and legislative department for “necessary departmental action.”
Based on these remarks, the state government issued a show-cause notice to the officer in July 2019, threatening disciplinary action under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The officer then approached the High Court to quash both the adverse remarks and the subsequent notice.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey delved into a long line of Supreme Court judgments on the expunction of remarks. The bench reiterated the well-established legal tests: whether the person was given an opportunity to defend themselves, whether there was evidence on record to justify the remarks, and whether commenting on their conduct was absolutely necessary for deciding the case.
The High Court found that the revisional court had failed on all three counts. The SDM was never given a chance to explain his actions before the disparaging remarks were made. The court emphasized that judicial pronouncements must be sober, moderate, and reserved, and that the “bench is a seat of power” that must not be misused for intemperate comments or scathing criticism.
The bench concluded that the remarks were neither necessary for the case’s outcome nor justifiable, and their retention would cause “legal harm” to the officer’s career. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and expunged the offending remarks from the revisional court’s order.
This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the exceptional care and restraint required from the judiciary when commenting on the conduct of individuals, especially when such remarks can trigger serious professional consequences.
Citation : 2023 Local Law (CG) 841
Case Details : WPCR No. 537 of 2019 Yugal Kishor Urawasha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 145; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 146