Practice Of Casting Aspersions On Judicial Officers Must Be Severely Depreciated: Rajasthan HC
|The Rajasthan High Court held that casting aspersions on Judicial Officers is a practice which is required to be severely depreciated.
The Court stated, “Critical analysis of a judgment in right perspective has to be appreciated but casting allegations upon a Judge if allowed would hit at the root of the system of justice.”
The petitioners had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the temple management, to maintain the old structures of the temples. The petitioners also prayed for the removal of a self-styled Guru Jairatan Sureshwar Ji (the Guru) from his position who had assumed full management of the Shri Vardhamaan Rajender Jain Bhadvaji Trust (Trust) due to the absence of elections.
The Presiding Officer had observed that the service of the summons was not complete. The petitioners argued that the service of summons was complete in accordance with Order V Rule 9 of the CPC since the service of summons was made to the Guru as well as the Manager.
The petitioner had cast allegations against the Presiding Officer due to the denial of their request to consider the service of the summons as complete.
A Single Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed, “The common law rule of immunity of judges based on the principle that a person holding office should be in a position to discharge his functions with complete independence and what is more important, without there being, in his mind, fear of consequences…Such practice is deprecated…It is expected from the lawyers to maintain all the restraint and not make allegations against a Presiding Officer.”
Advocate C.S. Kotwani represented the petitioners.
The trial court in its order observed that the petitioners had not made the Guru and the Trust parties to the case through the Trust, rather, they had been made parties in their personal capacity. Therefore, since the parties were served in a personal capacity, the application of the petitioners was rejected.
The High Court noted that the Guru and the Trust management were present at the address where the notice was being served and they refused to accept the the notice.
The Court explained that though the trial court was right to observe that the parties were served in their personal capacity, but it “cannot be declared that the service is complete and thus no indulgence is required in the order.”
The Court further observed, “If there is any complaint being filed and is pending before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court then the rights of the Bar and the individual lawyers cannot become a ground for pleading on judicial side. A lawyer is required to maintain all the restraint not to make allegations against a Presiding Office but is required to avail the order in the particular facts and provisions.”
Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- and dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Babulal & Ors. v. Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi (Trust) [Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:5831]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates C.S. Kotwani and Swati Shekhar