Supreme Court criticises tendency of Uttarakhand High Court judge to make remarks against lawyers

The Supreme Court recently expunged certain adverse remarks made by a sitting judge of the Uttarakhand High Court against an advocate in two orders [Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others].

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta opined that the remarks made by High Court judge, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma against the conduct of the advocate were wholly unjustified and illegal.

"We have gone through the orders dated 01-12-2020 & 07-12- 2021 and have carefully examined the circumstances in which the observations were made by the learned Judge. Having considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Judge, we are of the opinion that neither the conduct, nor the circumstance warranted recording of the remarks. These remarks are unjustified and illegal," the top court observed.

The Court also expressed its disapproval over the judge's tendency to make such adverse remarks against lawyers, after noting that the same High Court judge had earlier made critical comments against a lawyer earlier as well.

"We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of. In view of the fact that perception of the same learned Judge has already been noticed in Neeraj Garg (supra), we do not need to re-examine the approach adopted by the learned Judge even in this case," the top court observed.

The Bench was hearing appeals preferred by the advocate against whom the High Court had made its remarks in two orders dated December 1, 2020, and December 7, 2021.

The lawyer had sought the expungement of adverse remarks made against him in these two orders by Justice Sharma.

In his orders, Justice Sharma had noted that the lawyer, who had appeared for a litigant in a case, had left the courtroom "without even expressing his courtesy of leaving the Court to attend the proceedings in the other Courts."

The Supreme Court on September 24 allowed the lawyer's plea. It noted that there was nothing so serious (in the lawyer's conduct) for the High Court to take critical note of.

The top court also relied on its 2021 decision wherein it had expunged remarks made by the same High Court judge against another lawyer.

While expunging the remarks back then, the Court had noted that the observations by the High Court judge appeared to be based on the personal perception of the Judge.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, and advocates Javedur Rahman, Vikas Bahuguna and Mudassir, appeared for the appellant.

Advocates Namita Choudhary, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Srishti Choudhary and Shefali Choudhary, appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]