New Delhi: The Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC), in an exceptional and rare move, has expressed strong reservations against one of its own judges for making “disparaging” remarks against a trial court judge.
On Monday, a bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan was “compelled” to take suo motu cognizance of the 12 September order delivered by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta where the latter suggested disciplinary action against first additional sessions judge (ASJ) of Shivpuri, Vivek Sharma.
Gupta’s order, Justice Sreedharan’s bench observed, was excessive as it was passed without any jurisdiction.
The single judge bench’s comments on the merits of ASJ Sharma’s order were uncalled for and excessive because they were made in an unrelated proceeding, the bench noted. They were in direct violation of Supreme Court decisions that have repeatedly warned against passing remarks against trial court judges that have the propensity to besmirch the district courts.
While ASJ Sharma’s order dealt with the framing of charges against the accused in a cheating and corruption case, Justice Gupta was hearing a bail application filed by the same accused.
Justice Gupta had served as a district judge before he was elevated to the HC in July this year. His appointment to the HC was marked with controversy as it was cleared pending a mental harassment complaint against him.
Earlier this year, trial court judge Aditi Kumar Sharma had made representations against Justice Gupta’s elevation after the Supreme Court collegium had recommended his name for HC judgeship. Notwithstanding, the central government cleared his name and on 28 July, the President too gave her approval.
‘Ulterior motive’
The proceedings before Justice Gupta emerged from a bail application filed by Roop Singh Parihar, a computer operator employed with the state’s land acquisition office. In 2023, Parihar was named, along with others, in a cheating and corruption case. He was accused of embezzling more than Rs 5 crore in a land acquisition matter. It was alleged that he had forged and fabricated documents of the collector’s office and had also manipulated the collector’s orders for misappropriating funds that were transferred to his wife and relatives’ accounts.
While denying bail to Parihar, Justice Gupta observed that a huge amount of government money is alleged to have been misappropriated for which a thorough investigation is on and many perpetrators are yet to be identified.
Justice Gupta then spoke about the chargesheet filed in the case against Parihar and other co-accused. While noting that ASJ Sharma had discharged Parihar of all sections, except criminal breach of trust, Justice Gupta noted the trial court judge’s order ignored the facts presented in the chargesheet and, therefore, erred in holding that no offence has been made out against the accused.
Directing that his order be sent to the Principal Registrar (Vigilance) of the HC, Justice Gupta said permission should be taken to conduct an inquiry against ASJ Sharma on why he discharged Parihar of all the crucial sections without considering the facts.
Imputing “ulterior motive” behind his decision, Justice Gupta opined that ASJ Sharma’s discharge order gave undue advantage to Parihar, as it enabled him to apply for bail.
‘Damning remarks’
Disturbed with the observations Justice Gupta made against ASJ Sharma, especially naming him personally, Justice Sreedharan’s bench noted that the single judge had commented on the trial court order in the absence of any challenge to the same before it. The only issue pending before Justice Gupta was with regard to Parihar and a co-accused’s bail application.
More importantly, the “damning and disparaging remarks” were against the “consistent law laid down by the SC” asking the HCs to “desist from passing observations which have the propensity to besmirch the fair name of the trial court judge”.
The bench called it unfortunate for Justice Gupta to mention ASJ Sharma’s name in his order, instead of referring to the post he occupied, leading to “controversy in the public domain”.
Justice Gupta’s direction has a chilling effect for two reasons, the bench said. Firstly, it concludes that the order passed to discharge was to give undue advantage to the accused and secondly, it speculates ulterior motives on the part of the judge.
“This unfortunately was uncalled for and a violation of SC direction,” the bench said.
Moreover, the observations are “in excess of the exercise of the bail jurisdiction as the single judge was not in seizure of any revision filed by the state and has yet commented on the discharge order,” the bench added.
The bench warned against misuse of HC’s superintendence power over the district judiciary. It is not just to “correct the errors” but also has to discharge its function as the guardian of the district judiciary, reminded the bench.
“The HC becomes the sentinel to protect district judiciary from its (HC) excesses and to ensure independence and fearlessness of trial court is not emasculated (as in weakening or reducing the power and authority),” it said.
In a cautious note to the institution, the bench said the HC must exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction through a conscious process where the HC unambiguously or through illustrative inference discloses its intention to use this power. Orders like the one passed by Justice Gupta are usually passed under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the HC.
But when the “court exceeds discretion or jurisdiction in a given case, the same has to be deemed an error on HC part rather than presuming the same to be an order in exercise of its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction,” said the bench, as it directed the state to move the Supreme Court within 10 days against Justice Gupta’s order.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Who is an ‘ideal Indian wife’? Madhya Pradesh High Court’s answer