Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee 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.       

Latest Legal News