Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka High Court directive to send Mysuru district judge for judicial academy training

The Supreme Court recently set aside a Karnataka High Court order directing a Mysuru judge to go for training at a judicial academy so that she may learn to apply her mind while exercising discretion to grant bail. [Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka and ors].A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Pankaj Mithal also set aside the observations made against the additional district and sessions judge, and opined that the same were not justified."Such observation and direction in our opinion is not justified. This Court has been repeatedly indicating that such orders should not be made without opportunity to the person concerned whose career and esteem will be effected.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by the judicial officer in question challenging the observations and directions made against her in the order.While cancelling the bail granted by the judge in a dowry death case, the High Court had observed that the trial court had failed to exercise judicial discretion and had passed perverse and capricious orders.Pertinently, the High Court directed that the judge be sent to the Judicial academy for training in applying judicious thought process and exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences.It was reasoned that such action was necessary in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice, and to make the trial judge learn exercising of judicial discretion. These observations and directions have been quashed by the top court in the instant order..In a similar order concerning a judicial officer, the Supreme Court had in November 2022 observed that the practice of High Courts making adverse remarks against trial judges who grant bail makes judicial officers reluctant to grant bail. Further, this in turn increases the workload of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, it was noted..Senior Advocate Basavaprabhu S Patil with Advocates Anirudh Sanganeria and Samarth Kashyap represented the judicial officer.Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, C Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, Vishal Banshal, Rajeshawari Shankar, Niroop Sukrithy, Jai Nirupam and Ashish Yadav represented the respondents..Read our detailed coverage of the High Court story under challenge, and the dowry death complaint, here..[Read Supreme Court order]