The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a serving police officer by expunging adverse, stigmatic remarks made against him by a trial court in an NDPS case, and extended that relief to another officer against whom similar remarks had been recorded, even though that officer had not approached the court for relief. The petition was filed by a police officer who challenged an order of the trial court in which the trial court had not only made derogatory observations about his conduct but had also directed initiation of disciplinary and legal proceedings. The petitioner contended that these castigatory remarks were passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and adversely affecting his future career prospects. The High Court agreed, referencing a Supreme Court precedent underscoring that before adverse remarks are attributed to any person — particularly where those remarks could have serious professional consequences — the individual must be given a proper opportunity to be heard.
In scrutinising the trial court’s order, the High Court found that the adverse observations extended not only to the petitioner but also to another officer mentioned in the order, yet no hearing had been afforded to either of them before the trial court made those remarks. The respondents argued that the other officer had not approached the High Court for relief, but the bench held that relief could not be denied to him merely because he had not filed a petition. The court applied the principle of parity, reasoning that if one party is entitled to have adverse remarks expunged due to legal infirmity, similarly placed individuals should be afforded the same benefit to avoid discrimination. The High Court observed that a criminal court must treat like cases alike and that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty includes protection against arbitrary and unfair judicial comments that could stigmatise and affect careers.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the portion of the trial court’s order containing the adverse remarks against both the petitioner and the other officer. The court clarified that its order did not preclude the disciplinary authority from independently examining the matter on its merits, but merely prevented the trial court’s remarks from standing on record in a manner that could prejudice the officers’ reputations or future prospects. The petition was disposed with liberty to the disciplinary authority to consider the factual circumstances afresh and take such action as may be appropriate in accordance with law. The judgment underscores the importance of fairness in judicial observations and reaffirms that officers of the law are entitled to procedural safeguards before adverse findings can be recorded against them, particularly where such findings are unrelated to the ultimate determination of criminal culpability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.