http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: DR. DILIP KUMAR DEKA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/09/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave  granted.  Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the parties. 2.   This appeal  is for expunging certain remarks made by a learned Judge  of the  Guwahati High  Court against  the two appellants herein, namely, Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Dr. P.K. Baruah,  who   are  attached  to  Mahendra  Mohan  Choudhary Hospital, Guwahati  (’MMCH’ for short), while disposing of a criminal revision  petition filed  by an accused in a murder case. Facts  and circumstances leading to the remarks are as under. 3.   Over the  murders of  Mrs. Karabi Das and her niece Ms. Chandra Rani  Dharitri Das  a case under Section 302 IPC was registered by  Latasil Police  Station on  August 1,1995. In connection with  the case  Smt. Geeta Kalita and her husband Shri Bhagya  Kalita were  arrested on August 2, 1995; and on their  production  before  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Guwahati on  the following  day, (August  3, 1995) they were remanded to  the police custody for seven days on the prayer of the  Investigating Officer.  While in police custody Smt. Kalita complained  of severe  abdominal pain in the night of August 8,  1995 and,  therefore the police took her to MMCH. There she was first treated by Dr.K.S.Dowerah and, under his advice, was  admitted in  the hospital as an indoor patient. On the  following day  the appellant  No.1 examined  her and diagnosed that  she was  suffering  from  peptic  ulcer  and appendicitis. The  appellant No.1  then advised  the  Deputy Superintendent of  the  hospital  to  transfer  her  to  the Guwahati Medical  College Hospital (’GMCH’ for short) as the facility for  ultra sonography  was not  available in  their hospital. Accordingly,  the Deputy  Superintendent  wrote  a letter to  the Officer incharge of Latasil Police Station on August 9,  1995 requesting him to make security arrangements for shifting  her to  GMCH. However,  she was not removed to GMCH   and, hence, continued to be treated by the doctors of the MMCH including the two appellants. 4.   On August  16, 1995,  when it was brought to the notice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

of the  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, that without  the  order  of  the  Court  Smt.  Kalita  had  been hospitalised, he  passed an order calling for an explanation from the  Investigating Officer  (IO)  in  that  regard  and directed him  to furnish  the names  of the Medical Officers who had  treated her.  The Superintendent  of MMCH  was also directed to  submit a detailed report about the condition of Smt. Kalita  by August  21, 1995.  To comply  with the  said direction the  Superintendent asked the appellants to submit a detailed  report of  her medical  examination and  on  the basis of  the report so submitted, he sent his report to the learned Magistrate.  On perusal  of the  report the  learned Magistrate.  On perusal of the report the learned Magistrate passed  another   order  on   August  21,  1995  asking  the Superintendent, MMCH  to submit  weekly  reports  about  the condition of  Smt. Kalita.  In terms  of the  said order the Superintendent forwarded  the medical  report, submitted  by the appellants on August 24, 1995 and on perusal thereof and other materials  on record,  the Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati passed  an order  on August 27, 1995, which, so far as it is relevant for our purposes, reads as under:      "The accused  Smt. Geeta Kalita was      given in  police custody and as per      order of  the Court  she was  to be      produced  before   the   Court   on      16.8.1995. But due to the admission      of the  accused in hospital for the      alleged ailment  during the  period      of police  custody,  the  court  on      prayer  of  the  I/O  extended  the      period of  police  custody  with  a      direction to  produce  the  accused      before the Court when released from      the hospital.  In the circumstances      discussed above  the  detention  of      the accused Geeta Kalita in the MMC      Hospital at  the moment  is not  at      all necessary  and the I/O has also      shown  no   interest  to   get  the      accused   discharged    from    the      hospital  and  produce  before  the      Court.      Under the circumstances I refuse to      allow the  accused Geeta  Kalita to      be kept in the hospital any further      and decline to extend the period of      police    custody.     Hence    the      Superintendent,  MMC   Hospital  is      directed that  he  shall  discharge      the    accused     Geeta     Kalita      immediately  on   receipt  of  this      order and hand her over to the I/O.      The  I/O   shall  attend   the  MMC      Hospital to receive the accused and      produce her  before  the  court  by      1.30 p.m. on 29.8.1995 positively.      By flouting the orders of the Court      both the  I/O and  Dr.  A.C.  Bora,      Superintendent, GMC  Hospital  have      demeaned the authority of the Court      without  any  justifiable  reasons.      Therefore, in order to preserve the      supremacy of  the rule  of law,  it      may   be    necessary    to    take      appropriate  penal  action  against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    these two important and responsible      functionaries. Therefore,  Dr. A.C.      Bora,               Superintendent,      G.M.C.Hospital Guwahati and the I/O      are hereby  directed to  show cause      why they  should not  be  proceeded      with for  non-compliance and  clear      avoidance to comply Court’s order." 5.   Aggrieved by  the above  order so  far as  it sought to direct her  release from  the hospital,  Smt. Kalita moved a revision petition  before a learned Judge of the High Court. The learned  Judge entertained  that petition  and passed an interim order  on August  29, 1995  constituting  a  medical Board comprising  four eminent  doctors for  examining  Smt. Kalita and  directing the  I.O. not  to produce  Smt. Kalita before the  Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of his order, till the Board submitted its report. Following the direction of the  learned Judge,  the Board  examined Smt.  Kalita and submitted the following report on September 5, 1995.      "Having collectively  reviewed Smt.      Kalita’s physical condition and the      results of  all the  investigations      done on  her, we  have come  to the      unanimous conclusion  that she does      not  have   any  major  illness  at      present apart  from mild anemia and      minor bowel irregularity."      In view of the above report the learned Judge dismissed the revision  petition of Smt. Kalita and made the following remarks against  the appellants  which are  impugned in this appeal:-      (i) As  discussed  above  from  the      report it  can be  arrived  at  the      conclusion that the report given by      the  two   doctors   of   the   MMC      Hospital, namely,  Dr. DK  Deka and      Dr. PK  Baruah (the  two appellants      before    us)    is    manipulated,      motivated with  a view  to  mislead      the Court  by stalling  the process      of the  Court.  Their  conduct  was      unethical and  unprofessional which      violated the code of conduct of the      medical profession.      (ii) The  course  of  events  since      August 8,  1995 to  August 27, 1995      requires judicial  scrutiny on  the      conduct   and    professional   and      official responsibility  of the two      doctors, namely,  Dr. DK  Deka  and      Dr. PK  Baruah.....  which  shocked      the  conscience   of   the   entire      public;      (iii) From  the foregoing  reason I      am constrained  to hold that on and      from 16.8.95  accused Geeta  Kalita      was under the judicial custody, but      for    her     alleged     ailment,      manipulated and  highlighted by Dr.      D.K. Deka  and Dr. PK Baruah of MMC      Hospital  her  hospitalisation  was      continued till 27.8.1995;      (iv) The  IO is also a party to all      manipulation with the two doctors;      (v)  Apparently from 16.8.95 the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    accused Geeta Kalita was not under      police custody but at the      connivance of the IO and the two      doctors of the MMC Hospital she      continued her stay in the hospital      by flouting the Court’s order; and      (vi) The  systematic attempt of the      two doctors,  namely, Dr.  DK  Deka      and   Dr.    PK   Baruah   of   MMC      Hospital...... have  misused  their      official status  and responsibility      to thwart  the court proceeding and      delay  the   judicial  process  for      which  these  two  doctors....  are      liable to  be  brought  into  book.      Regarding conduct  and behavior  of      the two  doctors, their  extraneous      activities speaks  a  volume  about      their professional ethics......" 6.   The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction  of disparaging  remarks against  a person  or authorities whose  conduct comes in for consideration before a Court  of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down  by this  Court in State in Uttar Pradesh vs. Moh. Naim (1964) 2 SCR 363. Those tests are:      (i) Whether the party whose conduct      is in  question is before the court      or has an opportunity of explaining      or defending himself;      (ii) Whether  there is  evidence on      record  bearing   on  that  conduct      justifying the remarks; and      (iii) Whether  it is  necessary for      the decision  of the  case,  as  an      integral    part     thereof,    to      animadvert on that conduct.      The above  tests have  been quoted  with  approval  and applied by  this Court  in its  subsequent judgments in Jage Ram, Inspector  of Police & Anr. vs. Hans Raj Midha AIR 1972 SC 1140,  R.K. Lakshmanan  vs. A.K.  Srinivasan AIR  1975 SC 1741 and  Niranjan Patnaik  vs. Sashibhusan  Kar &  Anr. AIR 1986 SC 819. 7.   We are  surprised to  find that  in spite  of the above catena of  decisions of  this Court,  the learned  Judge did not, before  making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who  were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to  defend themselves.  It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious  aspersion   on  the   appellants  affecting   their character and  reputation and  may, ultimately  affect their career also.  Comdemnation of  the appellants without giving them an  opportunity of  being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice. 8.   Judged in  the context  of the  first test laid down in Mohd. Naim’s  case (supra)  the above  discussion of ours is sufficient to  quash the  impugned remarks, but we find that the remarks are vulnerable also to the second test laid down therein. On  perusal of  the order  dismissing the  revision petition we  find that  the remarks of the learned Judge are based solely  upon the  fact that  the report of the medical Board  consisting  of  four  medical  experts  belied  their report. Indeed,  except the report of the Board we have also not found  any other  material  on  record  from  which  the learned  Judge   could  have  legitimately  and  justifiably obtained satisfaction  to pass the above remarks against the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

two appellants  before us.  We hasten  to add that in making the above  observation we have left out of our consideration the materials  which prompted  the  learned  Judge  to  make adverse comments against the IO. 9.   Mr. Goswami,  the learned  counsel for  the appellants, contended that  it could  not be said that the report of the medical Board  belied those  of the appellants for they were based on  clinical examination  of Smt. Kalita only and that too much  earlier than  her examination  by the  Board.  Mr. Goswami next  submitted that  the appellants had submitted a further report  on 25.8.1995  stating that her condition had improved. In  the context  of the  above facts,  Mr. Goswami urged that simply because the Board on its later examination found that  Smt. Kalita  was not  suffering from  any  major ailment then,  it could not be said that the reports earlier given by  the appellants  about the  ailments of Smt. Kalita were incorrect.  We do  not however  wish to delve into this aspect of  the matter  and  would  proceed  to  examine  the justifiability  of   the  remarks  on  the  basis  that  the diagnosis of  the appellants  was patently wrong and that of the Board, which was admittedly a superior body, right. 10.  If the  learned Judge’s  reasoning to make the impugned remarks is  taken to  its logical  conclusion, it would mean that whenever  a superior  Court sets  aside a  finding of a lower Court,  which is  patently wrong,  the former  gets  a charter to  make vituperative  remarks  against  the  latter simply because  it  had  recorded  such  a  finding.  Before drawing any  conclusion that  an inferior  body on Court has recorded a  wrong finding  with an ulterior motive or for an oblige purpose  the superior  body or Court, as the case may be, must  demonstrate that  there are materials - other than the patently  wrong finding  which impels it to so conclude. Else, the  conclusion would  be presumptuous and justice and fair play would be casualities. 11.  Now that  we have found, applying the first two test of Mohd. Naim’s  case (supra)  that the impugned remarks cannot be justified,  the question  whether it  satisfies the third test also need not be gone into. However, we will be failing in our  duty if  we do  not advert  to the  phraseology  the learned Judge  has used  while condemning the conduct of the appellants. In  Mohd. Naim’s  case (supra)  this Court while laying  down   the  three  tests  (quoted  earlier)  further observed:      "It has  also been  recognised that      judicial  pronouncement   must   be      judicial in  nature and  should not      normally  depart   from   sobriety,      moderation and reserve."      While quoting  with approval  the above observations in Niranjan’s case (supra) this Court further observed:      We need only remind that the higher      the  forum   and  the  greater  the      powers, the  greater the  need  for      restraint and the more mellowed the      reproach should be." 12.  Recently, in Abani Kanti Ray vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 1990    Court  has made  the  following  observations  after referring to the earlier cases of this Court, including R.K. Lakshmanan (supra) and Niranjan (supra):      "What we have said above is nothing      new and  is only  a reiteration  of      the established  norms of  judicial      property  and   restraint  expected      from everyone  discharging judicial      functions.   Use   of   intemperate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    language  of   making   disparaging      remarks against any one unless that      be the requirement for deciding the      case, is inconsistent with judicial      behaviors.   Written    words    in      judicial   orders   for   permanent      record  which  make  it  even  more      necessary   to    practice    self-      restraint in  exercise of  judicial      power while  making written orders.      It is  helpful to recall this facet      to  remind   ourselves  and   avoid      pitfalls    arising    even    from      provocation at times." 13.  In keeping  with the  above observations,  we feel, the learned Judge  ought to  have used  temperate  language  and moderate expressions  while criticising  the appellants, for judicious restraint  in such matters only lends more dignity to the  high office  the learned  Judge  holds  and  imparts greater  respect   for  the  judiciary.  For  the  foregoing discussion we allow this appeal and quash the earlier quoted disparaging remarks made against the appellants. 14.  Before parting  with this judgment we wish to point put that while  dismissing the  revision petition  filed by Smt. Kalita the learned Judge has recorded the following order:      "Accordingly I  uphold the order of      the    learned    Chief    Judicial      Magistrate which was passed against      these    Govt.    officials    with      direction  to   show  cause  and  I      direct   the   Court   to   proceed      accordingly under the provisions of      law."           (emphasis supplied) 15.  This direction  of the  High Court is not in conformity with the  order of  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  (quoted earlier) for therein the direction is for holding an enquiry into the  conduct of Dr. A.C. Bora, Superintendent, MMCH and Investigating Officer and not the two appellants before us.