MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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