The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reviewed a petition lodged by an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), challenging disparaging remarks made against her by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba. The Board’s order had criticized the APP for failing to attend to a bail application, labeling it a dereliction of duty. The circumstances were that the regular prosecutor was off-duty, and additional charge of prosecution was given to the petitioner. Meanwhile she was engaged in recording statements before the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba, a process that extended until court hours ended, preventing her attendance at the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board, without allowing the APP to explain her non-attendance, made critical remarks about her conduct and directed the matter to the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, for appropriate action. The APP felt aggrieved by those adverse comments and moved the High Court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar heard the petition and examined precedent law concerning remarks made by courts against public servants. The Court drew upon decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, which cautioned that adverse remarks by courts must not be passed lightly as they can cause serious damage to reputation, and State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary & Ors., which observed the harmful potential when remarks are combined with recommendations for disciplinary action. It was held that strictures should be reserved for cases where there is no other recourse, after providing the person involved an opportunity to explain, establishing justification, and confirming that they are necessary for the decision of the case.
Applying these legal standards, the High Court found that the Samba Juvenile Justice Board did not seek to ascertain the reasons for the APP’s absence, nor give her a chance to explain. The Court considered that the remarks passed were neither necessary for deciding the bail application nor justified in the light of the circumstances. The APP's non-appearance was due to a scheduling conflict arising from her commitment to record statements in another court, tasks she could not abandon. The High Court observed that the accused was not in custody and that the case could have been adjourned by a day without prejudice; “heavens were not going to fall” by such a brief adjournment.
Justice Dhar emphasised that courts are expected to exercise tolerance, magnanimity, and largeness of heart in the face of minor lapses by public servants. He noted that merely because a prosecutor asks for time to prepare a brief, or is unable to argue a matter on a particular day, this does not warrant the imposition of strictures, more so when there is no danger to the accused’s custody or liberty. Given that none of the requisites for recording harsh remarks were met in this case—no prior notice, no opportunity to explain, and no necessity shown—the High Court held that the remarks were uncalled for.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, expunged the disparaging remarks from the record, and restrained the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, from initiating any departmental or other action against the petitioner based on the now-deleted remarks.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.