HC warns action against malicious attack on Judicial Officer

Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Sept 28: The High Court today warned appropriate action for malicious attack or uncalled for statement or allegation against the Judicial Officer or statutory authorities which casts aspersions on court’s integrity and its dignity.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar has held that any  scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious attack on the judicial officer/authority beyond condonable limits, amounts to scandalizing the court or tribunal amenable to not only conviction for its contempt but also liable to libel or defamation and damages personally or group libel.
Court was hearing a petition leveling therein allegations against a judicial officer, noticed that a new trend has emerged with the litigants, who on losing a case in the Court of law, make all sorts of allegation against the Judge knowing fully well that the Judge would have no opportunity to rebut.
“Given the nature of allegations made against the Judge, the petitioner could not have been allowed to go scot free without being made accountable for his conduct. But since the petitioner has appeared in person may not be knowing the consequences of his act and also looking to his age (a senior citizen), I do not propose to proceed any further and for all what has been discussed above, writ petition lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed”, Justice Kumar said in his judgment.
Court has further added that maintaining the dignity of the court and judicial officer or quasi-judicial authority, therefore, one of the cardinal principles of rule of law embedded in judicial review and the unfounded accusation by litigant against judicial officer undermines their authority and rudely shakes the public confidence in proper dispensation of justice.
“It is of necessity to protect dignity or authority of the judicial officer to maintain the stream of justice pure and unobstructed. The judicial officer or authority needs protection against such intimidating attacks. Therefore, making wild allegations against the Presiding Officer amounts to scandalizing the court/statutory authority”, read the judgment.
High Court while dismissing the petition without proceeding against the petitioner in view of his age and being unknown for his act said it is that expectation and confidence of all those, who have or are likely to have business in that court or tribunal, which should be maintained so that the court/tribunal perform all their functions on a higher level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
Justice Kumar further added that it is fundamental that if rule of law is to have any meaning and content, the authority of the court or a statutory authority and the confidence of the public in them should not be allowed to be shaken, diluted or undermined.
“The courts of justice and all tribunals, exercising judicial functions from the highest to the lowest, are by their constitution entrusted with functions directly connected with the administration of justice” court said adding with “casting defamatory aspersions upon the character, ability or integrity of the judge/judicial officer/authority undermines the dignity of the court/ authority and tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impedes the confidence of people in the courts/ tribunals, which is of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties”
The protection to judges/judicial officer/authority, court said, is not personal but accorded to protect the institution of the judiciary from undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of judicial process. The protection, therefore, is for fearless curial process. “The unfounded accusation by litigant against judicial officer undermines their authority and rudely shakes the public confidence in proper dispensation of justice. It is of necessity to protect dignity or authority of the judicial officer to maintain the stream of justice pure and unobstructed. The judicial officer/authority needs protection against such intimidating attacks. Therefore, making wild allegations against the presiding officer amounts to scandalising the court/statutory authority”, read the judgment.
Petitioner while filing the instant petition has made party respondent the then Presiding Officer of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar as he passed certain orders in the complaint filed before him, which did not find favour with petitioner and as a consequence thereof, he has come up with writ petition before High Court While dealing with the case of petitioner in the capacity of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, was, in essence, acting as a Judicial Officer and whatever done or ordered to be done by him when he dealt with the case of petitioner, was done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty.

Follow our WhatsApp channel