In Balendra Shukla vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 25-page long judgement dated July 8, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"....we find the uncharitable remarks in paragraphs 52, 53 and 57 to 61 to be unworthy of being retained in the judgment and we expunge the same. 47. We make it doubly clear that we have not commented on the rationale and the correctness of the judgment in the case of the writ petitioner, which has not been challenged by any one of the parties here, but only on the observations against the Hon’ble Chancellor’s Office; the Officer in the Hon’ble Chancellor’s Office and the Judicial Officer on deputation, as being wholly unnecessary for the disposal of this case." The Division Bench expunged "the uncharitable remarks in paragraphs 52, 53 and 57 to 61" in the 42-page long judgement dated March 5, 2025 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan in Kumari Anjana vs. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025).
The relevant paragraphs are as under:
52. Having perused the record produced by the officials of Raj Bhawan, the court comes to the conclusive finding that the order in the appeal was passed by antedating it just in order to defeat the mandatory directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. From the record, it appears that the matter was heard on various dates and thereafter on 26.09.2023 the order was reserved. On 03.10.2023, the Written arguments were submitted by the petitioner in the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor but in first week of January, 2024, i.e., 06.01.2024, the petitioner got a copy of the judgment. On this aspect, the queries made by the court but could not be answered by the Officers on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty (University) of the Governore’s Secretariate. They simply tried to evade giving direct replies by tendering oral apologies. The query of the court was intended to examine the delay caused in passing of the order and communication thereof, however, not even a single satisfactory answer was provided by the Officers on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty (University) of the Governore’s Secretariate except for tendering oral apologies, thus showing the clear case of ante-dating.
53. The ratio of judgment of Anil Rai (Supra) applies with full force throughout the country on all the institutions discharging judicial and quasi- judicial functions. It appears that just with a view to avoid the mandatory direction assed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court prescribing and limiting the period within which the reserved order has to be delivered, the Officers on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officers on Special Duty (University) keeping the Hon’ble Chancellor in dark got the order of appeal signed by antedating it....
57. Before parting, I find it apposite to highlight the grave issues which have been found during the course of hearing of instant matter which raises serious concern on the quality of work, the manner in which it is executed; as well as discharging of official responsibilities by officials in the Secretariat of Hon'ble Chancellor.
58. The office of the Hon'ble Chancellor is a statutory position, and the Hon'ble Governor, by virtue of holding the post of Governor, assumes the role of Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar as per the provisions of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and, to assist the Hon'ble Chancellor in discharging his official, legislative, executive, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions, officers from the administrative and judicial services are deputed to the Governor's Secretariat for a specific term, in accordance with the prevailing rules and notifications of the Government of Bihar. These officers, once posted in the Governor's Secretariat, are duty-bound to present accurate facts, relevant statutory provisions, and existing judicial precedents on various issues. This ensures that the Hon'ble Chancellor can make well-informed decisions and issue orders in compliance with statutory provisions and established judicial pronouncements.
59. However, in the present case, I found allegations of ante-dating in the order passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to summon Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), Shri Balendra Shukla, and Officer on Special Duty (University), Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, along with the original record of the petitioner's appeal in a sealed cover, as per the order dated 21.03.2024. Upon perusal of the records and upon inquiry from the aforesaid officials, I found that the allegations of antedating had merit. Consequently, the officials failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions posed by the Court and instead tendered their oral apologies.
60. In my considered opinion, the designations of Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University) are positions of high responsibility and integrity, as it is their bounden duty to assist the Hon'ble Chancellor in passing just, fair, and legal orders or directions. However, in the present case, I find that these responsibilities have not only been overlooked by the concerned officials but that they have also deliberately concealed crucial facts, thereby misleading the Hon'ble Chancellor into passing an erroneous order. Consequently, I find it appropriate to hold that the concerned officials “Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University)” are unfit for their respective positions and should be sent for appropriate training.
61. Accordingly, I direct that this order be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action concerning Shri Balendra Shukla, Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), who holds the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court.
Furthermore, with respect to Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Officer on Special Duty (University), the Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chancellor for necessary action."
The petitioner had prayed for expunging adverse remarks against him because he was not heard before such remarks were made. Also because those remarks were not in the nature of any correctional approach of the Court as also on the ground that such remarks do not make up for the reasons why the writ petition was allowed.
Justice Sharan, as Single Judge Bench had concluded:"In my considered opinion, the designations of Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University) are positions of high responsibility and integrity, as it is their bounden duty to assist the Hon'ble Chancellor in passing just, fair, and legal orders or directions. However, in the present case, I find that these responsibilities have not only been overlooked by the concerned officials but that they have also deliberately concealed crucial facts, thereby misleading the Hon'ble Chancellor into passing an erroneous order. Consequently, I find it appropriate to hold that the concerned officials 'Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University)' are unfit for their respective positions and should be sent for appropriate training."
The fact remains Justice Shatan had directed that "this order be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action concerning Shri Balendra Shukla, Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), who holds the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Furthermore, with respect to Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Officer on Special Duty (University), the Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chancellor for necessary action."
Justice Shatan had given relief to Kumari Anjana, a doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi who had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing the order dated September 26, 2023 passed by the Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, as well as the consequential orde issued cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna; The other respondents were: Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, Vice Chancellor, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna and Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna. Notably, the main findings of Justice Shatan's judgement has not been disturbed by the Division Bench.
The Division Beach's judgement was authored by Justice Kumar relied on Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Raghubir Sharan vs. The State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC 1, wherein the issue arose as to whether the inherent power of an Appellate Court to expunge remarks made therein could be invoked ordinarily as such expunction might derogate from the finality of the judgment.
He also referred to decisions in the State Of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703; Niranjan Patnaik vs. Sashibhusan Kar & Anr. 1986 (2) SCC 569; in the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer vs. in the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer, 2001 (3) SCC 54 and Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan & Ors; 2014 (5) SCC 417.
The the judgment of Om Prakash Chautala case which serves as a vademecum for the Judges while discharging their judicial functions. It reads: "19. It needs no special emphasis to state that a Judge is not to be guided by any kind of notion. The decision making process expects a Judge or an adjudicator to apply restraint, ostracise perceptual subjectivity, make one’s emotion subservient to one’s reasoning and think dispassionately. He is expected to be guided by the established norms of judicial process and decorum. A judgment may have rhetorics but the said rhetoric has to be dressed with reason and must be in accord with the legal principles. Otherwise a mere rhetoric, especially in a judgment, may likely to cause prejudice to a person and courts are not expected to give any kind of prejudicial remarks against a person, especially so, when he is not a party before it. In that context, the rhetoric becomes sans reason, and without root. It is likely to blinden the thinking process. A Judge is required to remember that humility and respect for temperance and chastity of thought are at the bedrock of apposite expression. In this regard, we may profitably refer to a passage from Frankfurter, Felix, in Clark, Tom C.,[16]:
“For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one’s personal pulls and one’s private views to the law of which we are all guardians – those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community, and not the victims of personal rule,”
20. The said learned Judge had said: -“What becomes decisive to a Justice’s functioning on the Court in the large area within which his individuality moves is his general attitude towards law, the habits of mind that he has formed or is capable of unforming, his capacity for detachment, his temperament or training for putting his passion behind his judgment instead of in front of it.[17]”
21. Thus, a Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he has a singular master “duty to truth” and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal parameters. No heroism, no rehtorics."
It emerged that right to reputation is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
No comments:
Post a Comment