Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Adverse Observations and Directions Against Judicial Officer in Landmark Judgment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 19, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside adverse observations and directions made against a judicial officer by the High Court of Karnataka. The judgment, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1616 of 2023, marks an important precedent emphasizing fairness and due process in judicial proceedings.

The case involved Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar, a judicial officer, who had appealed against the adverse remarks made by the High Court in connection with her exercise of discretion in a criminal petition concerning the cancellation of bail granted to the accused.

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from the appellant's senior counsel and the State's counsel, noted that the High Court had made certain observations regarding the manner in which the appellant had exercised her discretion. These observations led to a conclusion that the appellant should undergo training at the Judicial Academy, a direction that the Supreme Court deemed unjustified.

Emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity for the person concerned to be heard, the Supreme Court set aside the directions contained in the High Court's order and expunged the adverse observations made against the appellant. The Court underscored that orders affecting an individual's career and esteem should not be made without granting them a fair chance to present their case.

The landmark judgment serves as a reminder to the judiciary to exercise caution while making adverse orders and to uphold principles of fairness and natural justice. It highlights the significance of affording individuals the opportunity to defend their actions and reputations, recognizing the potential impact such orders can have on their professional lives.

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that it upholds the principles of justice and safeguards the rights of the appellant as a judicial officer.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated its commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of individuals within the legal profession and ensuring that due process is followed in all judicial proceedings. The decision sets a strong precedent for future cases and reinforces the importance of fairness and procedural safeguards in the justice system.

ASHVINI VIJAY SHIRIYANNAVAR   vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.       

Latest Legal News