Degree of restraint and sobriety expected from judicial officer: Tripura High Court recalls judge's remarks

The Tripura High Court on Tuesday recalled an Additional Sessions Judge's remarks made against lawyers representing the government, against whom he had threatened to initiate contempt proceedings [State of Tripura v. Sumit Banik and ors]..Justice Arindam Lodh ruled that the said remarks of the judge in question would demean the legal professionals referred to amongst their professional colleagues and may affect their careers in a prejudicial and unjust manner. "The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected from a judicial officer, in such situation, is also found missing when those offending observations were further confirmed with the rejection of the petition filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to expunge the remarks ... [The remarks] were also unnecessary for proper adjudication of the Sessions case before the Court," the order stated..The High Court thus transferred the criminal trial out of the said judge's court..The Court was hearing a plea moved by the Tripura Home Secretary seeking transfer of a criminal trial from Additional Sessions Judge Gobinda Das, who had said during a hearing that an adjournment request made by counsel for the State was without basis and not desirable.The Special Public Prosecutor had requested the said judge to adjourn the a hearing of a murder trial on a particular day owing the judicial duties of a prosecution witness (a civil judge) and their own case load at the High Court.However, the Additional Sessions Judge stated in his order,"Learned Special PP, however, sought time on the ground that the PW10 may not be available being busy with her official duties but, surprisingly PW10 was present in the VC Room as per schedule. The contention so made in the application in regards to PW10 is found to be without any basis and not at all desirable.".On a later request to expunge the said remarks, the judge said that the same was disrespectful, deserves no consideration and may amount to contempt. He asked the Law Secretary and the advocates representing the State authorities to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.He then dismissed the State's plea seeking a transfer of the trial on grounds of his earlier actions having "vitiated the ambience of the trial" that led to the prosecution losing all confidence in that Court. Aggrieved, the State moved the instant petition seeking quashing of the Additional Sessions Judge's orders and a direction to transfer the trial..Before the High Court, counsel for the State contended that their morale broke with the way the proceedings went about in the matter and that the judge's order shows bias. The remarks amount to personal aspersions, and are against professional ethics and conduct, it was submitted. Counsel for the accused respondents contended that lawyers being busy in another court could not be an appropriate ground to adjourn a case, and that if the case is transferred to another court, the present court conducting the trial will be demoralized..The High Court at the outset said it failed to understand why a show cause notice was issued to the Law Secretary when he was not a party to the proceedings. " ...with respect to learned Addl. Sessions Judge, I like to convey a message that judicial restraint is a virtue," Justice Lodh added, stating that the petition for expunction of remarks "by no stretch of imagination" showed disrespect.Dwelling on the Tripura High Court Rules and Section 309(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the single-judge stressed that unless and until an application indicating the names of prosecution witnesses is placed/filed, it cannot be said that witnesses were present or in attendance for examination. In the instant case, the prosecutor concerned had filed an adjournment application that day only, so it cannot be said that the witness (civil judge) was in attendance, the Court said. In this light, the Additional Sessions Judge should have verified the matter, the Court stated. "...these remarks are derogatory in nature concerning the professional conduct of an advocate...there is no need to make any remark or comment upon the conduct of learned counsels; making it an issue which was a non-issue, which is certainly not desirable for a Court conducting a trial relating to a case of serious nature...judicial decorum requires its dispassionate approach," the order reads.Observing that the proceedings so far affected the possibility of a fair trial in the matter, Justice Lodh stated "that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the reputation of the learned counsels or their work as members of the Bar.".The remarks in question were thus expunged and deleted from the order-sheet and the case was transferred to the Court of the Sessions Judge, who may carry out the trial himself or transfer the case to another competent court, the High Court's judgment stated.Senior Advocate Samrat Kar Bhowmik and Advocate Anirban Bhattacharjee, Public Prosecutor Ratan Datta, and Additional Public Prosecutor Sumit Debnath appearead for the petitioners.The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates PK Biswas and Somik Deb, and Advocates P Majumder, D Biswas, and AK Banerjee..[Read judgment]