K.P. TIWARI A  v.  

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  

OCTOBER 29, 1993  

[P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] B  

Administration of !ustice-fudicial discipline-Judicial Officer-Addi- tional Sessions Judge-Grant of unmerited bail by-Bail Order reversed by  High Co~Remarks passed against judicial officer in judgment attributing  motive to him-Power of higher courts to pass strictures against judges of c  subordinate courts-Held, judges of superior courts must eurcise self- restraint  and should not ignore judicial precaution and propriety-Wlli/e expressing .. disapproval of orders of subordinate courts, motive should not be attributed  to them-f'roper cour.se to adopt is to make not of conduct of concerned  officer in confidential record of his worlc if he is consistently passing orders  

D creating a suspicion of judicial conduct.  

The petitioner was an Additional District Judge. Ball applications or  five accused charged with offences punishable under ss. 147, 148, 149, 506, ·  341 and 302, IPC came berore him ror consideration at a time when a  charge-sheet In respect or the offence committed by the accused was being  processed In the court or Chier Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner con·  

E  

sldered the bail applications on merits and rejected the same. Insplte or  the rejection on merits, he first granted the accused temporary bail and  subsequently permanent ball. On an application ror cancellation or bail  preterred by the complainant, the High Court held that there was no  

F justification ror granting ball to any or the accused. While reversing the  orders or ball passed by the petitioner, the High Court made remarks In  the judgment attributing motive to him. The petitioner med the special  leave petition seeking expunctlon of the remarks made against him by the  High Court In Its judgment.  

Allowing the petitions and expunging the Impugned remarks, this  G  

Court,  

HELD: 1.1. It Is one of the functions of the superior courts to modify  or set aside the orders or the lower courts which are not justified In law  or In ract. Our legal system acknowledges the ralllblllty of judges and hence H  

497

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.  

A provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties  to the best or his capacity. While doing so, sometimes he is likely to err.  Every error, however gross it may look, should not therefore, be attributed  to Improper motive. [500·A·D]  

1.2. If a particular judicial officer is consistently passing orders  B creating suspicion or judicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly  

. attributable to Innocent functioning, the proper course for the higher court  to adopt is to made not of his conduct in the confindential record of his  work and to use it on proper occasion. [500-EJ  

C 1.3. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure  judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. No  greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the  confidence of the people in the judiciary than when'. the judges of the higher  courts publicly pass stricture against the subordinate judges and express  lack of faith In them. The judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint  

D and should not ignore judicial precaution and propriety. There are ways  of expressing" disapproval or the orders of the subordinate courts but  attributing motives is certainly not one of them. [500-F·H]  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special leave Petition  E " (CRL.) No. 2081-82 of 1993.  

From the Judgment and order dated 13.7.91 of the Madhya Pradesh  High Court in Misc. Crl. Case No. 816/91 and 466/91.  

K.N. Shalla and Ahmed Khan for the petitioner.  

F The Order of the Court was delivered :  

This is petition by a judicial officer who at the relevant time was an  Additional Sessions Judge, for expunging remarks which were made  against him by the High Court while reversing the orders of bail passed by  

G him in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 816 of 1991 and 466 of 1991.  

2. The undisputed fact are that the accused in those cases are  charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 341  and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was being processed in  respect of the offences in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the  

H relevant time. The five accused in the meanwhile, applied for bail. Their

K.P. TIWARiv. STATEOFM.P. 499  

application was considered on merits and rejected by the petitioner. How- A  ever, in spite of the rejection of the application on merits, the petitioner  first granted the accused temporary bail for one reason or the other and  all of them were subsequently granted permanent bail. Against the order  granting permanent bail, the complainant preferred an application to the  High Court and prayed for cancellation of the bail. This State did not file B  a separate application but supported the complainant's application and  also pressed for the cancellation of the bail. The High Court discussed the  case of each of the five accused who were granted bail and pointed out  that on facts there was no justification for granting bail to any of them and  by its order of 13th July, 1991 cancelled the bail of all the accused.  However, while passing the order, the High Court made the following C  observations :  

'The fact that the final grant was made without hearing the State  Govt. and without verifying the fact, points to the interestedness  of Shri K.P. Tiwari, learned F1rst Addi. Sessions Judge in the  non-applicants. Indeed this interestedness is apparent in all the D  five cases. The impression that one gets is that Shri R.P. Tiwar~  First A.SJ. has been won over by the non-applicants and therefore  was often to write any judgment, or order, releasing non-applicants  on bail. It is therefore a case where the non-applicant [sic) not only  have shown disregard to law and the judicial process but are also E  reasonably suspected of exercising corrupt influence over Shri K.P.  Tiwari, the F1rst A.SJ. This court has necessarily to recall such  orders.  

xxx XIX xxx xxx  

Indeed, it (court) will be failing in its duty if it accepts corrupt- ing influence of the non-applicants [sic) and permits illegal orders  to remain effective.'  

F  

There is no doubt that the High Court was fully justified in cancelling  the bail granted by the petitinner. In fact, on the facts and circumstances G  on record, we are not all satisfied that there was only case on favour of the  accused for releasing them on bail.  

We are, however, impellcd to remind the learned Judge of the High  Court that however anguished be might have been over the unmerited bail H

soo SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.  

A granted to the accused, he should not have allowed himself the latitude of  ignoring judicial precaution and propriety even momentarily. The higher  courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which arc not  justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set. them aside. That  is one of the functions of the superior courts. Our legal system acknow-

B ledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and  revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity.  While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err: It is well said that a judge  who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to  judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference  

C in views of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference  in approach and perception. On such occasions, the lower courts are not  necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. It has also to be  remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged  atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the  contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks - more  

· D correctly upto their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached  atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every  error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to  improper motive. It is possible that a particular judicial officer may be  

E consistently passing orders creating a suspicion of judicial conduct which  is not wholly or even partly attnbutable to innocent functioning. Even in  such cases, the proper course for the higher court to adopt is to make not  of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on proper  occasions. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure  judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The  

F respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower level are  criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. No greater damage can be  done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people  in the judiciary than when the judges of the higher courts publicly express  lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other. It must  

G be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are publicly  passed, stand condemned for ever in the eyes of their subordinates and of  the members of the public. No better device can be found to destroy the  judiciary from within. The judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint.  There arc ways and ways ri expressing disapproval of the orders of the  

H subordinate courts but attributing motives to them is certainly not one of ·

K.P. TIWARiv. STATEOFM.P. 501  

them. That is the surest way to take the judiciary downhill. A  

We, therefore, accept the petition and expunge the above-quoted  remarks from the judgment of the leaned Judge of the High Court  delivered on 13th July, 1991 in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 816 and 466 of  1991. The petition is allowed accordingly. B  

R.P. Petition allowed.