Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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.       

Similar News