Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the case of VN Singh V s Neelam Mishra & Ors, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the remarks made by the Allahabad High court against a sitting district judge.
The high court while hearing the appeal filed against the District Judge’s decision noted that the matter wasn’t within pecuniary jurisdiction, hence the petition should have thrown out at that time itself, but instead of doing so the proceedings were adjourned which was not the correct step taken by the judge. The High court noticed that the district judge went on leave which appeared to be a deliberate effort so that the application was not decided;
The district judge was warned later and was told to be more careful in future. The copy of those orders was sent to the High Court so that it can help in future guidance. A case was filed against such remarks in the Supreme Court. Kailash Vasudev was appointed as amicus to assist the court for this case by the Supreme Court, when no one appeared as a respondent. District Judge was represented by AOR AK Prasad and advocate Namit Saxena.
The bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice SK Kaul ordered that:
“We are also conscious of the fact of the overload with the Judicial officers especially in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Number of cases listed is manifold the times of the ideal amount of cases which should be dealt with by the appellant Officer. It appears that rather than deal with the preliminary objections separately, the learned Judge possibly thought it fit to hear the matter in totality including on merits and kept short dates. We do believe that the conduct of the Officer in such a scenario cannot be doubted and the stigma ought not to be cast on the Officer by the observations made in the impugned order. It is also informed that the appellant has retired as Judicial Officer by now. We thus strike out the observations made in the impugned order qua the conduct of the appellant as also the direction consequently made to place the same on the service record.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824