2021 INSC 0332
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.    4555 ­ 4559     OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8643­8647 of 2021)
NEERAJ GARG         APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Leave  granted. The appellant is a  practicing lawyer, before the High
Court of Uttarakhand with around 17 years standing as member of the
Bar.   The   present   appeal   is   limited   to   expunging   certain   observations
made against the appellant by the learned Judge of the High Court while
deciding  four   cases  in   which   the  appellant  was   representing   one   of   the
contesting   parties.   The   following   are   the   orders   and   proceedings   of   the
High Court with which, we are concerned in this matter: 
“W.P. (M/S) No.2216 of 2017 and W.P. (M/S) No.2208 of
2017   titled   Vira   Wali   Manga   Vs.   Sarita   Rani,   S.A.
No.190/2019   titled   Landour   Community   Hospital   Vs.
1

Sandeep   Bishnoi .   S.A.   No.   182   of   2019   titled   Vinod
Kumar   Vs.   Mandir   Laxmi,   W.P.   (M/S)   No.   519   of   2019
titled  Parul Prakash Vs. Anil Prakash .”
2. This Court issued returnable notice in the matter on 02.07.2021 and
appointed Mr. Amar Dave as the   amicus curiae   to assist the Court. Mr.
Dave appears and makes submissions accordingly. The Office Report in
the   case   reflects   that   the   Counsel   for   the   Appellant   has   circulated   a
letter   dated   13.07.2021   stating   therein   that   the   Petition   has   been   filed
only   for   expunging   certain   observations   recorded   against   the   Appellant
by   the   High   Court   in   the   concerned   cases   and   the   Appellant   is   not
seeking  any  relief  against any  of the  arrayed  Respondents and  as such
they be treated as Proforma Respondents. 
3. Representing   the   appellant,   Mr.   Mukul   Rohatgi,   the   learned   Senior
Counsel   submits   that   the   appellant   is   regularly   practicing   in   the
Uttarakhand   High   Court   with   a   fairly   large   practice.   The   Counsel   then
submits   that   the   remarks/observations   made   by   the   learned   Judge
against   the   Appellant   were   recorded   without   putting   the   counsel   to
notice   or   providing   any   hearing   to   him,   before   recording   the   adverse
comments.     It   is   also   submitted   that   those   recordings   are   neither
essential   nor   necessary   for   the   Court’s   verdict   in   the   concerned   cases.
According   to   Mr.   Rohatgi,   such   adverse   comments   will   not   only
2

undermine   the   professional   reputation   of   the   Appellant   but   would   also
impact his standing and practice as a lawyer.
4. The   learned   amicus   curiae ,   Mr.   Amar   Dave,   together   with   the
learned   Senior   Counsel   Mr.   Mukul   Rohatgi   have   drawn   specific
attention   of   this   Court   to   the   following   remarks   in   the   High   Court’s
judgement   dated   14.11.2017,   in   the   W.P.   (M/S)   No.2216   of   2017   and
W.P. (M/S) No.2208 of 2017, where the Appellant was appearing for one
of the contesting parties in the case. 
“*** *** *** *** ***
16.   I   express   my   deep   anguish   and   hesitantly
refraining   myself   from   taking   any   action   against   the
counsel   for   the   petitioner   for   producing   only   part   of
document   and   placing   reliance   on   the   same   for
procuring   an   interim   order   by   suppressing   material
fact.
17.   The   counsel   for   the   petitioner   is   a   seasonal
advocate   he   owes   a   responsibility   towards   the
institution   and   fraternity   too,   he   had   deliberately
created a wrong example for the pious institution.
*** *** *** *** *** ” 
5. Similarly,   in   the   second   case,   i.e.,   S.A.   No.190/2019   the   learned
Judge on 22.11.2019 recorded the following comments: 
“**** *** *** ***           ***
2.   In the present Second Appeal , when the argument
for the  learned  counsel  for the  appellant was  initiated
too  be  addressed  for   quite  some  time,  this  Court is  of
3

the   view   that   the   tenacity   of   argument   of   the   learned
counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant was in a manner as
if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain
of a mole, which this Court will not hesitate to re mark
that was a brutal assassination of time for those other
litigants,   whose   matters   were   pending   consideration
on the said date before this Court. 'It further reflected
that   as   if   it   was   not   an   argument   for   the   case   but
rather for the visitors' gallery.
*** *** *** ***  ***” 
6. In the third judgement, i.e., S.A. 182 of 2019 dated 12.03.2020, the
following unacceptable conduct of the counsel was noted: 
“*** *** *** ***           ***
In   order   to   avoid   an   argument   at   admission   stage   of
the   present   Second   Appeal,   before   this   Court,   the
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a
prior proceedings which was held before this Court by
way of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 604 of 2009, Sri Vinod
Goel   v.   Sri   Sushi/   Chandra   Sabbarwal   &   Another,
since   I   had   appeared   as   a   counsel   on   behalf   of   the
defendant/appellant   herein,   an   attempt   was   made   at
a later stage of arguments, to avoid to address of the
Second Appeal on its merits before this Court. 
*** *** *** ***  ***” 
7. In the fourth case, W.P.(M/S) 519 of 2019, the Court on 22.02.2021,
noted its displeasure against the counsel in the following manner: 
“**** *** *** ***           ***
4

2.   Though   this   Court   should   have   avoided   to   make
this   remark,   but   owning   to   the   deliberate   and
intentional,   modus   operandi,   which   is   normally
adopted,   which   has   now,   become   a   regular   feature,
almost   in   most   of   the   cases,   which   are   filed   by   the
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   this   Court   is
constraint   to   make   certain   observations,   which   has
been   invariably   found,   to   be   followed   by   t h e   learned
Counsel,   basically   intended   so   as   to   mislead   the
Court   or   to   avoid   an   adjudication   of   the   case   on
merits   and   to   pose   the   difficulty   to   the   Court,   at   the
time of hearing of the Writ Petition itself at admission
stage, itself, by putting uncalled for documents, which
are   not   even   relevant,   including   the   copy   of   the
citation/judgments,   on   which   he   wants   to   rely,   as
part   of   the   records   of   the   Writ   Petition,   making   the
records   of   the   Writ   Petition,   running   into   several
volumes,   and   that   too   in   a   writ   jurisdiction   under
Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   which   is
arising of the concurrent judgments.
3.   This has been a clear and a consistent device, and
a   tactics   which   has   been   adopted   by   the   learned
counsel   for   the   petitioner,   by   placing   voluminous
records   in   the   Writ   Petition,   including   the   copies   of
precedent/   judgments,   on   which,   the   reliance   has
been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
which   in   the   instant   case   happens   to   be   about   20
judgments, which the petitioner's counsel contends to
rely   on,   in   support   of   his   case,   as   against   the
concurrent   finding   of   facts,   which   has   been   recorded
by both the Courts, below and that too in a summary
proceedings,   which   were   held,   under   Section   21(1)(a)
of   Act   No.   13   of   1972.   Though   for   the   reasons   to   be
recorded   hereinafter,   it   could   be   apparently   inferred,
that   even   most   of   the   judgments,   on   which,   reliance
has been made, are not even relevant for the purposes
of consideration of the case, and even they may not be
applicable   under   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
present case.
5

4.   This attitude, adopted cannot be ruled out to  be a
professional   and   a   strategic   device,   which   is   being
adopted, so that Court may at the stage of hearing for
admission   of   writ,   due   to   paucity   of   time,   would   be
constraint to admit, even the Writ Petitions, which are
arising   from   concurrent   judgments,   in   a   summary
rent control proceedings, where grant of interim order
would become inevitable during its pendency, besides
being   taxing   on   the   litigant   also,   to   meet   the
artificially escalated expenses too, and this strategy is
not   an   isolated   example,   but   rather   it   is   a   regular
feature, which had been adopted by the Counsel, as a
routine   in   most   of   the   cases,   which   are   being
instituted   from   his   Chamber.   This   methodology   is
being deliberately adopted with a premonition, that if
judgment   is   put   to   challenge   before   a   superior
platform,   he   may   have   his   argument   protected   that
the   judgment   relied   by   him,   and   which   were   on
record,   before   the   Court,   were   not   considered   by   the
Court,   and   thus   the   judgment   is   a   consequence   of
non­application of mind, by the High Court.
52.   This Court before addressing the judgment relied,
on its merit, this Court had a l ready observed in para
2,   3   and   4   of   the   judgment,   the   modus   operandi,   of
the counsel for the petitioner to place reliance on the
irrelevant judgments, which had got no significance or
its applicability, under the facts and circumstances of
the   present   case,   and   this   Court   has   already
consciously   observed   that   the   intention   behind
making   reference   to   the   judgement,   was   to   mislead
the   Court   and   to   buy   time   in   prolonging   the
proceedings   in   order   to   overcome   the   effect   of
dismissal   of   the   concurrent,   Writ   Petitions   in   limine
by   placing   voluminous   judgements   on   records,   and
making references of them, by quoting its excerpts.
*** *** *** ***  ***” 
6

8. The   Appellant   contends   that   the   above   referred   comments   in   the
judicial orders of the High Court against the Counsel’s conduct were not
needed for adjudication of the matters under consideration. In any case,
the   observations   could   not   have   been   recorded   without   putting   the
counsel on notice about the intention of the Court. It is also submitted
that by virtue  of the remarks  recorded against the Appellant, his hard­
earned   reputation   has   been   tarnished.   To   project   that   such   remarks
were   unmerited,   Mr.   Rohatgi   points   out   that   the   Appellant,   with   an
otherwise   unblemished   professional   record,   had   no   occasion   to   suffer
such   adverse   remarks   from   any   other   judge   of   the   High   Court.     Since
the   concerned   Presiding   Judge,   before   his   elevation   on   19.05.2017   to
the   Bench,   was   a   member   of   the   same   Bar   as   the   Appellant   and   both
were   rival   counsel   in   several   contested   matters,   Mr.   Rohatgi   submits
that   the   comments   may   have   emanated   from   personal   prejudice   and
may   not   be   otherwise   warranted.   Accordingly,   it   is   argued   that   the
Appellant   should   not   be   made   to   suffer   adverse   comments   on   his
conduct   as   a   lawyer   only   because   the   concerned   Judge   may   not
appreciate the efforts made by the Counsel, on behalf of his client. 
9.   To press home the argument that the offending remarks against the
counsel   are   unmerited,   and   do   not   meet   the   required   parameters,   the
7

learned Sr. Counsel has cited   State  of U.P. vs.  Mohammad  Naim 1
  where
Justice S.K. Das laid down the following tests to be applied while dealing
with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person
whose conduct comes in for consideration before  a Court of law. Those
tests are: 
(a)   Whether   the   party   whose   conduct   is   in   question   is   before
the   court   or   has   an   opportunity   of   explaining   or   defending
himself; 
(b)   Whether   there   is   evidence   on   record   bearing   on   that
conduct justifying the remarks; and 
(c)  Whether  it  is  necessary   for  the  decision  of  the  case,  as  an
integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.
10.     In   Alok   Kumar   Roy   Vs.   Dr.   S.N.   Sarma 2
,   in   the   opinion   written   by
Justice   C.K.Wanchoo   for   a   Five   Judges   Bench,   this   Court   had
emphasized   that   even   in   cases   of   justified   criticism,   the   language
employed   must   be   of   utmost   restraint.   The   use   of   carping   language   to
disapprove   of   the   conduct   of   the   Counsel   would   not   be   an   act   of
sobriety, moderation or restraint. 
1  AIR 1964 SC 703
2  (1968) 1 SCR 813
8

11. The   judgement   of   this   Court   in   A.M.   Mathur   Vs.   Pramod   Kumar
Gupta 3
,   delivered   by   Justice   K   Jagannatha   Shetty,   elaborates   on   the
need   to   avoid   even   the   appearance   of   bitterness.   The   Court   observed
that, 
“13…The duty of restraint, this humility of function
should   be   constant   theme   of   our   judges.   This
quality in decision making is as much necessary for
judges   to   command   respect   as   to   protect   the
independence   of   the   judiciary.   Judicial   restraint   in
this   regard   might   be   better   called   judicial   respect,
that is respect by the judiciary…” 
12.   The   importance   of  avoiding   unsavory   remarks   in  judicial   orders  as
per   established   norms   of   judicial   propriety   has   also   been   succinctly
noted in   Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa 4
  by Justice J.S. Verma, in
the following words, 
“Use   of   intemperate   language   or   making
disparaging remarks against anyone, unless that be
the   requirement   for   deciding   the   case,   is
inconsistent   with   judicial   behaviors.   Written   words
in   judicial   orders   are   for   permanent   record   which
make   it   even   more   necessary   to   practice   self­
restraint in  exercise of judicial  power  while  making
written orders.”
3  (1990) 2 SCC 533
4  1995 Supp (4) SCC 169
9

13. The   principles   laid   down   as   above,   have   been   quoted   with
approval   and   applied   by   this   Court   in   several   subsequent   judgments,
including for a 3 Judge Bench in   Samya Sett Vs. Shambhu Sarkar and
Another 5
.     In   this   case   Justice   C.K.   Thakker,   writing   for   the   Court
opined   that   the   adverse   remarks   recorded   were   neither   necessary   for
deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor an integral part of
the judgement, and accordingly directed deletion of those remarks. 
14. The proposition of law laid down by Justice S.K. Das on behalf
of   the   Four   Judges   Bench   in   Mohammed   Naim   (Supra)   on   recording   of
adverse   remarks   has   been   approved   in   a   catena   of   decisions   since
1964.   It   was   also   cited   by   the   Supreme   Court   of   Sri   Lanka   in   A.N.
Perera   Vs.   D.L.H.   Perera   and   Ors. 6
  where   Abdul   Kadir   J.   speaking   for
the Bench approved of the tests laid down by this Court and concluded
that   the   judge’s   comments   against   the   petitioner   in   that   case   were
thoroughly unwarranted under each of those tests. 
15. While   it   is   of   fundamental   importance   in   the   realm   of
administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions
freely   and   fearlessly   and   without   interference   by   anyone,   it   is   equally
important   for   the   judges   to   be   exercising   restraint   and   avoid
5  (2005) 6 SCC 767
6  1982 SCC SL SC 20
10

unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no
bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.   
16. Having   perused   the   offending   comments   recorded   in   the   High
Court   judgments,   we   feel   that   those   could   have   been   avoided   as   they
were  unnecessary   for   deciding  the  disputes.    Moreover,  they   appear  to
be   based   on   the   personal   perception   of   the   learned   Judge.       It   is   also
apparent   that   the   learned   Judge   did   not,   before   recording   the   adverse
comments,   give   any   opportunity   to   the   Appellant   to   put   forth   his
explanation.     The   remarks   so   recorded   have   cast   aspersion   on   the
professional   integrity   of   the   appellant.     Such   condemnation   of   the
Counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a
negation of the principles of  audi alteram partem .   The requisite degree
of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be
missing in the offending comments. 
17.       The   tenor   of  the  remarks   recorded  against  the  appellant  will   not
only   demean   him   amongst   his   professional   colleagues   but   may   also
adversely   impact   his   professional   career.       If   the   comments   remain
unexpunged   in   the   court   judgments,   it   will   be   a   cross   that   the
Appellant   will   have   to   bear,   all   his   life.       To   allow   him   to   suffer   thus,
would in our view be prejudicial and unjust.
11

18. In   view   of   the   forgoing,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that
the   offending   remarks   recorded   by   the   learned   judge   against   the
appellant   should   not   have   been   recorded   in   the   manner   it   was   done.
The   appellant   whose   professional   conduct   was   questioned,   was   not
provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself.  The
comments   were   also   unnecessary   for   the   decision   of   the   Court.     It   is
accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid
any future harm to the appellant’s reputation or his work as a member
of the Bar.   We therefore order expunction of the extracted remarks in
paragraphs 4,5,6, and 7 of this judgement. The appeals are accordingly
disposed of with this order. 
…………………………………………J.
         [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
…………………………………………J.
        [HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST  02, 2021
12