Public Prosecutor Seeking Time To Prepare Brief Does Not Call For 'Disparaging' Remarks, Court Must Be Tolerant: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphatically observed that courts are expected to be tolerant, magnanimous and largehearted in dealing with minor lapses of public servants, holding that merely because a public prosecutor is unable to argue a matter or seeks time to prepare the brief, it does not warrant the passing of strictures.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made the remarks while quashing disparaging comments recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba, against an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), noting that “heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day, particularly when the accused was not in custody.”

The case arose out of an order, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samba, in which the Board expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of an APP. On that day, the regular prosecutor of the Board was on leave and an additional charge had been handed over to the petitioner APP. Simultaneously, the APP was engaged before the Court of the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba, recording statements of prosecution, a process that continued until the court hours expired.

As a result, the officer could not attend the Juvenile Justice Board to argue a pending bail application. Treating this absence as dereliction of duty, the Board passed disparaging remarks against the APP and directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, for appropriate action. Feeling aggrieved, the officer filed the instant petition before the High Court.

Justice Dhar examined the settled position of law regarding adverse remarks by courts. Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 12 SCC 689, the Court noted that such remarks should never be made lightly, as they may cause serious damage to the character and integrity of an individual. The Supreme Court had held that before recording strictures, the court must consider whether the person concerned had an opportunity to explain, whether evidence justified such remarks, and whether they were necessary for the decision of the case.

The High Court also relied on State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 575, where the Supreme Court emphasised that disparaging remarks coupled with directions for departmental action could irreparably harm an officer's career. Quoting State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703), Justice Dhar reiterated that while judges enjoy freedom and independence, restraint, sobriety and moderation are indispensable in judicial pronouncements.

Applying these principles, Justice Dhar observed that the sequence of events showed little more than a communication gap between the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner. The Board, without ascertaining the reasons for her absence and without affording her an opportunity to explain, passed adverse remarks which were neither necessary nor justified for deciding the bail application.

“Time and again this Court has cautioned the courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same is absolutely necessary for disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice”, Justice Dhar remarked.

The Court further stressed, “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… 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.”

Holding that the remarks were uncalled for and unnecessary for the disposal of the matter, the High Court allowed the petition. The disparaging remarks made in the order were directed to be expunged, and the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, was restrained from taking any further action against the petitioner based on them.

Case Title: Anu Charak Vs UT Of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment