Date of the Judgment: 21st March, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 249
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The judgment was authored by Justice Krishna Murari.
Can a High Court make adverse remarks against individuals who are not directly involved in a case during bail proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of bribery. The court clarified the limits of judicial commentary during such proceedings, emphasizing the importance of fairness and restraint.
Case Background
The case originated from a bribery allegation against a police officer, Respondent No. 1, who was accused of demanding a bribe. During the bail proceedings for Respondent No. 1, the High Court of Karnataka made adverse remarks against three individuals: Mr. Seemant Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 2), a senior IPS officer; Mr. J. Manjunath (Appellant No. 3), the District Collector of Bangalore; and the State of Karnataka (Appellant No. 1). These remarks were made even though Appellants No. 1 and 2 were not parties to the bail proceedings, and Appellant No. 3, while an accused in the related case, was also not a party to the bail proceedings.
The High Court’s comments, which were widely reported, prompted the appellants to seek relief from the Supreme Court. They argued that the remarks were unwarranted and damaging to their reputations.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20.05.2022 | An FIR was registered against Respondent No. 1 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe. |
| 22.06.2022 | During bail proceedings for Respondent No. 1, the High Court issued oral summons for the Appellants to appear in court. |
| 04.07.2022 | The High Court made adverse remarks against the Appellants during the bail proceedings. |
| 07.07.2022 | The High Court made further adverse remarks against the Appellants and directed the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2. |
| 18.07.2022 | Previous order passed by Supreme Court. |
| 21.03.2023 | The Supreme Court delivered its judgment, quashing the High Court’s adverse remarks and interim order. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, while hearing the bail application of Respondent No. 1, made adverse remarks against the Appellants on two separate occasions. These remarks were widely publicized due to the High Court’s YouTube channel. The High Court also directed the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2. Aggrieved by these remarks and directions, the Appellants sought relief from the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeals.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of the powers of the High Court during bail proceedings under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Sessions regarding bail. It states that:
“A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.”
The Prevention of Corruption Act, specifically Section 7(a), was also mentioned as the basis for the initial FIR against Respondent No. 1.
Arguments
The Appellants argued that the High Court’s remarks were unwarranted, damaging to their reputations, and made without giving them a proper opportunity to be heard. They contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making adverse comments against individuals not directly involved in the bail proceedings.
Specifically, the Appellants submitted that:
- ✓ The High Court’s remarks were made during bail proceedings for Respondent No. 1, in which Appellants No. 1 and 2 were not parties.
- ✓ Appellant No. 2, being a government employee, had no personal involvement in the case.
- ✓ Appellant No. 3, although an accused in the related case, was not a party to the bail proceedings.
- ✓ The High Court’s direction to the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2 was made without following due procedure.
- ✓ The remarks and directions were made without giving the Appellants an opportunity to defend themselves.
The Appellants relied on several authorities to support their arguments, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and caution when making adverse remarks, especially against individuals not directly involved in the proceedings.
The innovativeness of the argument lies in highlighting the misuse of judicial power by the High Court in making adverse remarks and issuing directions against individuals who were not parties to the bail proceedings, thereby causing them reputational harm and prejudice.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Adverse Remarks |
|
| Lack of Opportunity to be Heard |
|
| Exceeding Jurisdiction |
|
| Judicial Restraint |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellants during the bail proceedings of the respondent No. 1 are liable to be expunged?
- Whether the direction issued by the High Court to seek for reports against the Appellant No. 2 during the bail proceedings of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellants during the bail proceedings of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be expunged? | Yes, the adverse remarks were expunged. | The remarks were unreasonable, without justification, and caused harm to the reputation of the Appellants, who were not parties to the bail proceedings. |
| Whether the direction issued by the High Court to seek for reports against the Appellant No. 2 during the bail proceedings of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside? | Yes, the direction was set aside. | The direction was issued without following due procedure and without giving Appellant No. 2 a chance to be heard, and it was beyond the scope of bail proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How the authority was considered? | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Emphasized that courts must be careful while passing adverse remarks and should do so only if necessary for the decision of the case. |
| State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Stated that judges must refrain from passing adverse remarks as they can cause mischief and be an antithesis to justice. |
| Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar, (2021) 9 SCC 770 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that judges must exercise extreme caution while passing remarks in court that may be susceptible to misinterpretation. |
| RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha, (2010) 15 SCC 85 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Stated that the High Court must confine itself to the issues relevant for deciding bail and not pass orders beyond its scope. |
| State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan & Anr, (2020) 15 SCC 251 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that courts cannot issue directions outside the purview of deciding bail, especially when a separate mechanism exists. |
| State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 770 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that invoking jurisdiction outside the purview of the main case at hand was unjust. |
| Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Considered | Deals with the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Sessions regarding bail. |
| Section 7(a), Prevention of Corruption Act | Statute | Considered | Basis for the initial FIR against Respondent No. 1. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions by the Court
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The High Court’s remarks were made during bail proceedings for Respondent No. 1, in which Appellants No. 1 and 2 were not parties. | Accepted. The court agreed that the remarks were made in proceedings where the Appellants were not parties. |
| Appellant No. 2, being a government employee, had no personal involvement in the case. | Accepted. The court acknowledged that Appellant No. 2 had no personal involvement. |
| Appellant No. 3, although an accused in the related case, was not a party to the bail proceedings. | Accepted. The court noted that Appellant No. 3 was not a party to the specific bail proceedings. |
| The High Court’s direction to the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2 was made without following due procedure. | Accepted. The court found the direction was made without due process. |
| The remarks and directions were made without giving the Appellants an opportunity to defend themselves. | Accepted. The court agreed that the Appellants were not given a chance to be heard. |
| Judges must exercise caution while making adverse remarks. | Accepted. The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint. |
Treatment of Authorities by the Court
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569 | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that courts must be careful while passing adverse remarks and should do so only if necessary for the decision of the case. |
| State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 | The Court relied on this case to state that judges must refrain from passing adverse remarks as they can cause mischief and be an antithesis to justice. |
| Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar, (2021) 9 SCC 770 | The Court relied on this case to hold that judges must exercise extreme caution while passing remarks in court that may be susceptible to misinterpretation. |
| RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha, (2010) 15 SCC 85 | The Court relied on this case to state that the High Court must confine itself to the issues relevant for deciding bail and not pass orders beyond its scope. |
| State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan & Anr, (2020) 15 SCC 251 | The Court relied on this case to hold that courts cannot issue directions outside the purview of deciding bail, especially when a separate mechanism exists. |
| State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 770 | The Court relied on this case to hold that invoking jurisdiction outside the purview of the main case at hand was unjust. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold judicial propriety and ensure that adverse remarks are not made against individuals without proper justification and due process. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the reputation of individuals, especially when they are not directly involved in the proceedings. The Court also noted the increased responsibility of judges due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to uphold judicial propriety and ensure due process. | 30% |
| Importance of maintaining the reputation of individuals. | 30% |
| Responsibility of judges due to live broadcasting of court proceedings. | 20% |
| Remarks were made against individuals not directly involved in the proceedings. | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects and precedents) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the High Court’s actions were manifestly arbitrary and unjust. The Court held that the High Court should have confined itself to the issues relevant to the bail proceedings of Respondent No. 1.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- ✓ The remarks were made against individuals who were not parties to the bail proceedings.
- ✓ The remarks were made without proper justification and without giving the Appellants an opportunity to be heard.
- ✓ The direction to the CBI was issued without following due procedure.
- ✓ The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing orders beyond the scope of bail proceedings.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
“In expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint, (…) the judges should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve and harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against the parties or authorities unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as integral part thereof”
“We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.”
“Having said that, we must emphasise the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ High Courts must exercise restraint and caution when making adverse remarks, especially against individuals not directly involved in the proceedings.
- ✓ Courts should not issue directions that are beyond the scope of the proceedings at hand, particularly during bail hearings.
- ✓ Live broadcasting of court proceedings requires judges to be more responsible and cautious in their remarks.
- ✓ Individuals have the right to be heard and defend themselves before any adverse remarks are made against them.
This judgment sets a precedent for judicial conduct during bail proceedings and emphasizes the importance of fairness, due process, and judicial restraint. It also highlights the need for courts to be mindful of the impact of their remarks, especially in the age of live broadcasting.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned interim order of the High Court. It also requested the High Court to expeditiously conclude the bail proceedings of Respondent No. 1, if not already concluded, in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the present judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts must exercise extreme caution and restraint when making adverse remarks, especially against individuals who are not directly involved in the proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial commentary should be fair, justified, and within the scope of the proceedings. It also highlights the need for judges to be mindful of the impact of their remarks in the age of live broadcasting. This case clarifies the limits of judicial power during bail proceedings and strengthens the protection of individual rights and reputations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Seemant Kumar Singh vs. Mahesh PS & Ors. is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint and fairness during court proceedings. The Court quashed the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the Appellants, highlighting that such comments should not be made without proper justification and due process. This judgment sets a precedent for judicial conduct and reinforces the principles of fairness and transparency in the legal system.