Supreme Court expunges remarks by Gauhati High Court against Assam NIA judge in UAPA case

The Supreme Court recently deleted certain adverse remarks made by the Gauhati High Court against a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court judge in a judgment relating to Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). .A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha stated that the rest of the High Court judgment would continue to be in force but the adverse observations against the judge will be expunged. "We are of the opinion that the adverse observations against the petitioner as contained in paragraphs 130, 190,191, 192, 193,194 and 233 and in any other relevant portion of the order are treated as expunged and shall not be held against the petitioner in any manner. Dehors the said observations which are expundged the order/judgment would remain in force, to be considered on its merits, if it arises subsequently in any other case," the Court stated..Notably, the petitioner-judge has since become a permanent judge of the Gauhati High Court.The High Court order under challenge was delivered by a bench led by then Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta, who has since become a Supreme Court judge..The petitioner-judge moved the apex court raising grievance against observations made against him by the High Court which had overturned ta conviction handed down by him in a UAPA case. The High Court while acquitting the accused had noted that the NIA had failed to prove that the accused were engaged in criminal conspiracy.Further, it had held that Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel Garlosa), an organisation of which the accused were alleged to be members, was not conclusively proven to be a terrorist organisation..The petitioner contended that the following remarks by the High Court against him were objectionable:- attributing deep rooted bias (on the part of the petitioner-judge) in favour of the prosecution;- acting in a sheerly partisan bent of mind that by any means, the accused/ appellant Ahshringdaw Warisa had to be convicted;- virtually predetermined conclusion;- committing an act of rank judicial impropriety;- acting in an absolutely slipshod manner;- acting as a mute spectator without giving a second thought and by total non-application of mind to the actual evidence available on record..The petitioner submitted that the said remarks were not necessary for deciding the appeal.Pertinently, the High Court had directed that a copy of the ruling be placed before the Assam State Judicial Academy 'for future references and guidance' so that cases with serious allegations do not meet the same fate on account of grave lapses by the trial court.The top court had last month sought the response of NIA to the petitioner's appeal. .Eventually, in an order passed on November 10, the Supreme Court proceeded to expunge the remarks in question..Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria with advocates Somiran Sharma, Aadya Malik and Dhrubajit Saikia represented the judicial officer (now a High Court judge). Additional Solicitor General SV Raju with advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Sairica Raju, Arkaj Kumar and AK Sharma appeared for National Investigation Agency..[Read order]