SC: Wrong order can’t be sole ground for disciplinary action against judicial officer

Agreeing with the contentions of counsel of Nirbhay Singh Suliya, who was removed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, the SC said “there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that there are circumstances from which inference could be drawn that extraneous considerations actuated the passing of those orders of bail. The hypothesis was drawn only on the basis that the order did not make reference to the statutory provision expressly”.

Justice Viswanathan said “the findings in the inquiry report” by the committee constituted by the state High Court “are perverse and are not supported by findings on record… on the available material, no reasonable person would have reached the conclusion that inquiry officer reached”.

Justice Viswanathan said “a fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests. A judicial Officer is tasked with the onerous duty of deciding cases. Invariably one party to the case would lose and go back unhappy. Disgruntled elements amongst them, wanting to settle scores may raise frivolous allegations”.

The judge pointed out that “instances have also emerged from different parts of the country, where not just disgruntled parties but some mischievous elements in the Bar have also resorted to intimidatory tactics against the members of the trial judiciary by engineering false and anonymous complaints. Strict and strong action in accordance with law should be taken against such individuals… such proceedings would include in appropriate cases, proceedings for contempt of court”.

He added that “In case the person filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints is a recalcitrant member of the Bar, apart from proceedings for contempt of court, reference to the Bar Council should be made for disciplinary action…”

Justice Viswanathan said “Equally, if the complaint of misconduct against the judicial officer is prima facie found to be true, prompt action to initiate disciplinary proceedings should be taken and no leniency should be shown if the charges are established.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice Pardiwala said if “complaint of misconduct against the judicial officer is prima facie found to be true.. in an appropriate case, even criminal prosecution may be instituted against a judicial officer. Such action is necessary to weed out tainted judges from the judiciary”.

He said that corruption in the judiciary at any level can’t be tolerated, “as corruption severely undermines the core of the administration of justice and erodes public trust in the rule of law…A mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself, without anything more, cannot be a ground to initiate departmental proceedings”.

Justice Pardiwala said “initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail”.

A disciplinary inquiry had concluded that while Suliya granted bail in some Excise Act cases involving seizure of more than 50 bulk litres of liquor, the judicial officer rejected bail applications in many other similar cases, citing the large quantity.