No personal criticism of Judicial Officers
Madhya Pradesh High Court Invokes Suo Motu Jurisdiction to Address Disparaging Remarks by Single Bench. Court Criticizes Personal Criticism of Judicial Officers and Urges Restraint in Judicial Observations
In a significant development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated suo motu proceedings to address derogatory remarks made by a Single Bench against a Trial Court Judge. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal, emphasized the necessity for restraint and adherence to the Supreme Court's guidelines regarding judicial criticism.
The proceedings were sparked by orders passed by the Single Bench on September 12, 2025, in two bail applications related to Crime No. 375/2024. The Single Bench had made disparaging comments about the Trial Court Judge, accusing him of having "ulterior motives" and giving "undue advantage" to the accused. The remarks were deemed uncalled for and in violation of established principles.
Highlighting the Supreme Court's consistent directive to avoid personal criticism of Judicial Officers, the High Court asserted that higher courts should focus on rectifying errors without casting aspersions on the character or motives of Judicial Officers. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and Ors., 2024 INSC 888," which underscores the importance of judicial restraint and the potential prejudice caused by personal criticism of judges.
The High Court clarified that the observations made by the Single Bench were beyond the scope of its bail jurisdiction, as there was no revision pending before it against the Trial Court's order. Exercising its power of superintendence under Articles 227 and 235, the High Court underscored its responsibility to protect the independence and fearlessness of the District Judiciary.
Acknowledging the limitations of its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court directed the respondent to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court within ten days. The court emphasized that its order was not adversarial and did not necessitate a reply from the High Court.
This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the need for judicial discipline and the preservation of the dignity of the judiciary. The proceedings are set to continue on October 6, 2025, for further orders.
Bottom Line:
High Court's suo motu jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 235 invoked to address disparaging remarks made by a Single Bench against a Trial Court Judge, highlighting the need for restraint and adherence to the Supreme Court's guidelines on judicial criticism.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 227, 235 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
