Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Quashes Adverse Remarks in Bail Proceedings: Protecting Rights and Reputation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court during the bail proceedings of a police officer, emphasizing the importance of caution and fairness in judicial remarks. The bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, held that passing adverse remarks without proper justification can harm the reputation of individuals and prejudice their trials. The court's decision also set aside a direction issued by the High Court to seek reports against an unconnected party, highlighting the need to confine jurisdiction to relevant matters. The judgment, which has far-reaching implications, underscores the court's commitment to protect the rights and reputation of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

"The courts must exercise caution and restraint while passing adverse remarks, particularly when the accused is not a party to the case. Unjustified and unreasonable remarks can cause great harm and prejudice to the accused," stated the bench in its ruling.

The case pertained to three criminal appeals arising from adverse remarks made by the High Court during the bail proceedings of a police officer accused of bribery. The appellants, including a senior IPS officer, sought the expungement of the adverse remarks and challenged the High Court's direction to seek reports against them.

The Supreme Court, citing previous judgments, emphasized that bail proceedings only establish a prima facie view of the case's merits and should not lead to unwarranted adverse remarks. It further highlighted the need to confine the court's jurisdiction to relevant issues and parties.

The bench stated, "A court's jurisdiction should not extend to unrelated matters or parties, particularly when it concerns bail proceedings. Passing remarks and directions outside the scope of the case can have far-reaching consequences and adversely affect individuals' rights."

The court's ruling brings relief to the appellants, expunging the adverse remarks made against them and setting aside the direction to seek reports. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to maintaining fairness, protecting reputations, and upholding the principles of justice.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2023

SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH  vs MAHESH PS & ORS.     

Latest Legal News