Innocent’s arrest — SC upholds action against magistrate

NEW DELHI, NOV 9: The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Mumbai High Court to compulsorily retire a magistrate for illegally issuin...

NEW DELHI, NOV 9: The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Mumbai High Court to compulsorily retire a magistrate for illegally issuing arrest warrant against an innocent person, who was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of his locality by police.

The disciplinary committee of the High Court had recommended imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement of Shashikant S Patil after rejecting the inquiry report which had exonerated him.

On Patil’s appeal against the sacking order, a division bench of the same High Court had quashed the order saying the disciplinary committee did not put forward adequate reasons for differing from the finding of the inquiry report.

Story continues below this ad

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court order, said “the division bench has clearly exceeded its jurisdictional frontiers by interfering with such an order passed by the High Court on the administrative side.”

The apex court bench headed by Justice K T Thomas said “dishonest is the stark antithesis ofJudicial probity. Any instance of a high court condoning or compromising with a dishonest deed of one of its officers would only be contributing to erosion of the Judicial foundation.

“Every hour we must remind ourselves that judiciary floats only over the confidence of the people in its probity,” Justice Thomas observed. The apex court said it was the full court of all judges of the High Court of Bombay which had authorised the disciplinary committee of five judges of that high court to exercise the functions of the High Court in respect of punishment of Judicial officers.

“It is the constitutional duty of every High Court, on administrative side, to keep guard over the subordinate judiciary functioning within its domain,” Justice Thomas said.

Story continues below this ad

“While it is imperative for the High Court to protect honest Judicial officers against all ill-conceived or motivated complaints, the high court cannot afford to bypass any dishonest performance of a member of the subordinate judiciary,” the judgesaid.

If a Judicial officer “tips the scales of justice its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious” as the Judicial officers were holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility, he said.

Coming to the case, Justice Thomas said the division bench of the High Court “appears to have snipped off the decision of the disciplinary committee of the High Court as if the bench had appeal powers over the decision of five judges on the administrative side.”