Courts Are Expected To Be Highly Tolerant In Ignoring Trifle Misdemeanour Of Lawyers & Public Servants: Jammu And Kashmir & Ladakh High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the courts are expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanour of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “The courts are expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanour of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant. Merely, because a public prosecutor has been unable to argue a matter or has sought time to prepare the brief does not call for passing of strictures against the said public prosecutor even if it is assumed that his/her conduct may not be upto the mark, that too in a case, where the accused was not behind the bars and heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day. The remarks made by Juvenile Justice Board, Samba, against the petitioner are therefore, uncalled for and were definitely not necessary for the disposal of the case.”

Case Brief

A Petition was filed challenging the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Samba, to the extent of passing of strictures against the conduct of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP).

As per the records, the Petitioner was busy in recording the statement of prosecution witnesses in the court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate which continued up to the expiry of court timing. However, during the same period she was required to argue a bail application that was pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. On account of her pre-occupation, the APP could not attend the Juvenile Justice Board, which was taken as an act of dereliction of duty on part of the APP by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Resultantly, the matter was directed to be brought to the notice of Deputy Director of Prosecution, with a recommendation to take a strict note of the matter on account of improper, negligent and unbecoming conduct of the APP.

Court’s Observation

The Court considered the question whether it was appropriate for the Juvenile Justice Board to pass adverse remarks against the APP. The Court referred to various judgments on the issue relating to passing of disparaging remarks and adverse comments/strictures in judgments.

“From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it is clear that normally courts should avoid passing strictures and disparaging remarks against Government officials when they have not been afforded an opportunity of explaining or defending themselves. The adverse remarks/observation can be made by the courts only if it is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and when there is material on record to suggest complicity of the officers”, the Court said.

The High Court opined that the Juvenile Justice Board, without ascertaining the reason as to why the APP had not been able to attend the proceedings before the Board, has proceeded to pass strictures against the APP.

The High Court underscored, “The courts are expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanour of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant.”

Further, the High Court observed that time and again the High Court had cautioned the courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same was absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice.

Accordingly, the Petition was allowed and the remarks about the conduct of the APP made in the order were directed to be expunged.

Cause Title:Anu Charak V. UT of J&K & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2963)

Click here to read/download Order