In the case of A.M. Mathur vs Pramod Kumar Gupta [(1990) 2 SCC 533], the Apex Court underscored the essential role of mutual respect in the judicial process, likening judicial restraint to the discipline integral to an army. It emphasized that respect in the courtroom is reciprocal: while litigants must show respect to judges, judges equally owe a duty of respect to the litigants appearing before them. A judge’s failure to uphold this obligation undermines both the judge and the judicial process. The judicial bench, as a seat of power, wields the authority to make binding decisions. However, this authority should not be abused through intemperate comments, undignified banter, or harsh criticism of counsel, parties, or witnesses.
While courts possess the inherent power to act upon their convictions in matters of adjudication, it is a fundamental principle for the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks against individuals or authorities should be made only when absolutely necessary for the resolution of the case. Recognizing the fact that judges may know the use of intemperate language should be avoided in judgments but often lose control over the language while penning them, the court in the case of Amar Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. [(2012) 6 SCC 491] observed that every judge must remind themselves of the principles of judicial restraint and sobriety and adhere to them diligently. Recalling the wise words of an eminent author distinguishing between a person who merely understands the ‘Shastras’ and one who both understands and practices them and can be truly called a ‘vidvan’ or wise person, the court observed, judges may know they should avoid using harsh language in judgments, but often forget to apply this knowledge in practice. Their knowledge remains theoretical and is not translated into action. A dedicated and comprehensive effort is needed to put these principles into practice, ensuring that they are realized and implemented.
No Personal Passion, No Heroism, No Rhetoric
Recently, the Chief Justice of India, Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, while speaking at a public event, opined that a judge’s job is to judge without being judgmental. A judge should not be swayed by personal notions. Decision-making requires restraint, impartiality, and rational thinking, guided by established judicial norms and decorum. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Chautala Vs Kanwar Bhan [(2014) 5 SCC 417], observed that Judges must practice humility and respect for temperance, subordinating personal views to the law and making one’s emotions subservient to one’s reasoning and thinking dispassionately. Their role is to detach from personal biases, ensuring their judgments are rooted in truth within legal boundaries, without heroism or excessive rhetoric. Quoting J. Frankfurter, Felix, in Clark, Tom C.,[16],the Court observed – “For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one’s personal pulls and one’s private views to the law of which we are all guardians – those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community, and not the victims of personal rule. Thus, a Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he has a singular master “duty to truth” and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal parameters. No heroism, no rehtorics.”
Dignity of a Litigant and Right To Reputation
In Om Prakash Chautala vs Kanwar Bhan [(2014) 5 SCC 417], the Apex Court emphasized that adverse observations not integral to the adjudication can severely affect an individual’s reputation and undermine the impartiality and objectivity expected in judicial proceedings. Highlighting the importance of reputation, J. Deepak Mishra observed “Reputation is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. ………. When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person’s reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to. The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said.”
The judgment by Justice M. Nagaprasanna received extensive coverage in renowned newspapers such as The Hindu and Deccan Herald, leading to public opinion against the complainant wife. This widespread publicity forced the complainant to face ignominy in a male-dominated society, portraying her as having harassed her husband with frivolous complaints and subjecting him to numerous medical tests, including for STDs. This coverage led to numerous derogatory comments on social media, causing her significant mental distress.
The Three-Fold Test: Remarks Not Integral To Adjudication
In the landmark case of State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim (1963 SCC Online SC 22), the Supreme Court established a three-fold test for personal remarks in judicial orders: the affected party’s opportunity to be heard, evidence on record justifying such remarks, and the necessity of those remarks for the decision. The current judgment fails this test. The adverse remarks were unnecessary for determining whether the husband’s actions constituted mental cruelty or dowry demands, which could have been concluded without assessing the complainant’s attitude. This assessment of complainant’s conduct was irrelevant to the case, as the proceedings were neither related to family court matters where the wife’s conduct might be pertinent nor the issue before the court was of “mental cruelty by the wife against the husband”
Openness Misinterpreted As Negative Attitude : Equal Right To Assert Safe Sexual Relation In A Matrimonial Alliance Undermined –
The complainant’s openness in asserting her right to a safe sexual relationship and her straightforwardness in expressing her apprehensions about her husband suffering from an STD seem to have led to the remark, “the attitude of the complainant speaks for itself,” and the satire of her straightforwardness being termed as candidness. The satirical undertone undermines her right to a healthy sexual relationship, which is not just her equal conjugal right but also a denial of which has been judicially recognized as mental cruelty. The complainant’s compulsion to express her concerns about her husband’s STD in open court was inevitable in the absence of in-camera proceedings or an appointed amicus-curiae, leading to harsh observations against her character.
Misplaced Blame: The Court’s Unfounded Concerns About Societal Disharmony
The judgment made sweeping statements about societal impact, claiming such complaints lead to “enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony, and happiness in society.” This perspective is problematic, as it unjustly burdens the complainant with societal harmony, implying women should endure suffering to avoid disruption. This viewpoint reinforces regressive stereotypes and discourages victims from seeking justice. The legal system should serve as a platform for justice and equality, not silence women’s experiences.
Narrow Perspective Of Marital Abuse Undermines Justice
The court’s observation that the complainant grossly abused the legal process reflects an outdated perspective on marital abuse, ignoring the broader spectrum of abusive behaviors in a marriage. This view fails to recognize the complexity of abuse and the protections under Section 498A of the IPC, including mental cruelty. The court also overlooked other alleged offenses, such as cheating and criminal breach of trust. Just because these were not included in the FIR or chargesheet does not mean the law was misused. The court’s conclusion lacked thorough investigation, also due to the defective investigation on the part of the State.
The Dangerous Precedent: Misguided Liberty For Malicious Prosecution
Granting the husband liberty to prosecute the wife for malicious prosecution under Section 211 of the IPC sets a dangerous precedent. This decision could deter victims from coming forward, fearing retaliation and legal repercussions. It shifts the focus from alleged abuses to questioning the complainant’s credibility. Justice P. N. Bhagwati, in State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors [(1986) 4 SCC 566], noted that judges must recognize their fallibility and avoid unjust harsh remarks, which can cause harm and result in injustice. The liberty granted by J. M. Nagaprasanna in this case could influence ongoing disputes, potentially prejudicing the complainant’s position in divorce and domestic violence proceedings.
While the legal outcome of quashing the prosecution under Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act may be based on the evidence, the adverse remarks against the complainant highlight the need for judicial restraint. The judiciary must ensure its language does not perpetuate stereotypes, deter victims from seeking justice, or infringe upon individuals’ rights and reputation. Judgments should focus solely on the legal merits of the case, upholding the dignity and equality of all litigants and ensuring mutual respect.
~Laksh(Trainee)