Supreme Court Quashes Adverse Remarks and CBI Probe Order in Karnataka Bail Case (21 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 272

Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a High Court make adverse remarks against individuals who are not party to a bail proceeding, and direct investigation against them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. This case highlights the importance of judicial restraint and the need to avoid making prejudicial remarks against individuals who are not directly involved in the proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with Justice Krishna Murari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a bail proceeding in the High Court of Karnataka involving Respondent No. 1, a police officer accused of demanding a bribe. During these proceedings, the High Court made adverse remarks against the Appellants: Mr. Seemant Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 2), a senior IPS officer, Mr. J. Manjunath (Appellant No. 3), the District Collector, and the State of Karnataka (Appellant No. 1). Notably, Appellants 1 and 2 were not accused in the bribery case, nor were they parties to the bail proceedings. Appellant No. 3 was an accused in the bribery case but not a party to the bail proceedings.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, during the bail proceedings of Respondent No. 1, made adverse remarks against the Appellants. These remarks were widely reported in the media, causing damage to the Appellants’ reputations. The High Court also directed the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2, without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court seeking expungement of the remarks and quashing of the directions.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the power of the High Court to grant bail. The Supreme Court also considered the principles of judicial restraint and the need for caution when making adverse remarks, especially against individuals who are not parties to the proceedings. The Court relied on previous judgments that emphasized the importance of fairness and the avoidance of prejudice in judicial proceedings.

Arguments

The Appellants argued that the High Court’s remarks and directions were unwarranted, as they were not parties to the bail proceedings and were not given an opportunity to be heard. They contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making adverse comments and ordering investigations against individuals who were not accused in the case and had no connection to the bail application. The Appellants also emphasized that the remarks had caused significant harm to their reputation.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant No. 1 (State of Karnataka): Argued that the High Court’s remarks were made without proper justification and caused harm to the state’s reputation.
• Appellant No. 2 (Mr. Seemant Kumar Singh): Contended that the High Court’s remarks and the direction for a CBI report were made without any basis, as he was not an accused in the case and was not given a chance to defend himself.
• Appellant No. 3 (Mr. J. Manjunath): Argued that the High Court’s remarks were unwarranted as he was not a party to the bail proceedings, and the remarks could prejudice his ongoing trial.

The Respondent No. 1 did not make any submissions regarding the remarks made against the Appellants as the bail proceedings were limited to his case alone.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
2. 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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the Appellants were unwarranted and liable to be expunged. The Court emphasized that the Appellants were not parties to the bail proceedings, and no opportunity was given to them to be heard before the remarks were made. The Court also held that the High Court’s direction to the CBI to submit a report on past investigations against Appellant No. 2 was beyond the scope of the bail proceedings and was liable to be set aside.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [(1986) 2 SCC 569]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for judicial restraint and that adverse remarks should only be made if necessary for the decision of the case.
• State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [(1986) 4 SCC 566]: This case was used to highlight that judges should refrain from making adverse remarks as they can cause mischief and injustice.
• Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar [(2021) 9 SCC 770]: The Court referred to this case to stress the importance of caution when making remarks in court that could be misinterpreted, emphasizing judicial propriety.
• RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha [(2010) 15 SCC 85]: This authority was used to support the view that High Courts must confine themselves to the issues relevant to the bail application and not pass orders that affect third parties.
• State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan & Anr [(2020) 15 SCC 251]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC is limited to granting or not granting bail.
• State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others [(2011) 14 SCC 770]: This case was used to support the view that inherent power should not be invoked for issues that are foreign to the main context of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of fairness, judicial restraint, and the need to avoid prejudice in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that adverse remarks should only be made when necessary for the decision of the case, and after providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard. The Court also highlighted that bail proceedings are limited in scope and should not be used to pass orders that affect third parties or are outside the purview of deciding the bail application. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and prevent the misuse of judicial power.

The Supreme Court observed that:

• “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”
• “Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts must exercise extreme caution while making adverse remarks, especially against individuals who are not party to the proceedings.
• Judicial remarks should be made only if necessary for the decision of the case and after providing an opportunity to be heard.
• Bail proceedings are limited in scope and should not be used to pass orders that affect third parties or are outside the purview of deciding the bail application.
• The judiciary must maintain transparency and accountability, and judicial conduct must be consistent with the principles of fairness and justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expeditiously conclude the bail proceedings of Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced or influenced by this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must exercise restraint and caution when making adverse remarks and issuing directions for investigation, especially during bail proceedings, and must not exceed their jurisdiction by making orders that affect third parties or are outside the scope of the bail application. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles of fairness and judicial restraint and provides clarity on the limitations of the High Court’s powers in bail proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint and the need to avoid making prejudicial remarks against individuals who are not directly involved in the proceedings. The Court’s decision to quash the High Court’s order and expunge the adverse remarks serves as a reminder to the judiciary to exercise caution and ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and impartially. The judgment also clarifies the scope of bail proceedings and the limitations on the High Court’s powers in such cases.