AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 249 wordsT.S. Doabia, J.
The only prayer made by the petitioner is that there was no necessity to make observations as made in para 6 of the order passed by the District Judge. Morena.
It is settled law that sweeping remarks should not be made in judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of the The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, observed as under :-
It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisation defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in eases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (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, the on that conduct It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reverse.
I am of the view taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the remarks made in para 6 of the orders were not at all necessary for just and proper decision of the case. The remarks made in para 6 are accordingly expunged.