The Supreme Court has ordered the Gauhati High Court to expunge certain disparaging remarks made by one of its Benches against a Special NIA Court Judge, who is at present a sitting judge of the High Court.
The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice P.S. Narasimha ordered on Friday that the adverse observations made against the petitioner as contained in paragraphs 130, 190,191, 192, 193,194 and 233 and in any other relevant portion of the order should be treated as expunged and should not be held against the petitioner in any manner.
The petitioner, who is currently a sitting judge of the Gauhati High Court, had moved the Apex Court seeking expunction of some disparaging remarks made in a Gauhati High Court verdict against his ruling of conviction in an NIA case, when he was a Special NIA Judge at Gauhati in Assam.
He sought removal of remarks such as ‘deep rooted bias in favour of the prosecution’, ‘acting in a sheerly partisan bent of mind that by any means the accused/appellant Ahshringdaw Warisa had to be convicted’, ‘virtually pre-determined conclusion’ and ‘committing an act of rank judicial impropriety while delivering the judgement’.
These observations were made by the High Court in its verdict passed on August 11.
The Apex Court made it clear that the impugned High Court judgement would remain in force, without the adverse remarks against the judge.
It said in 2017, the petitioner had delivered a verdict convicting the accused for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Arms Act, 1959.
The petitioner was elevated as a judge of the High Court in 2023. He contended that the disparaging remarks made by the High Court were unnecessary and should have been avoided.
He said the role of the High Court was of a friend, philosopher and guide of Judiciary subordinate to it.
As per the petition, the said observations/remarks were not necessary for deciding the appeal and rendering the impugned verdict and therefore, ought to have been avoided. He said the remarks have deeply hurt his reputation before his colleagues, lawyers and litigants. The remarks further disturbed his peace of mind, besides affecting him in discharging his judicial duties with calm and confidence, added the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Somiran Sharma, Advocate Aadya Malik and Advocate Dhrubajit Saikia appeared for the petitioner.
(Case title: X vs National Investigation Agency)