Summary
The Court expunged remarks impugning a judicial officer’s integrity and set aside personal costs imposed on him. Although his refusal to record a motor-accident settlement because of a dispute over advocates’ fees was rightly reversed, that legal error did not justify public condemnation as corrupt. Suspected misconduct should be placed before the Chief Justice for administrative consideration. No relief concerning administrative action remained pressed because it had been dropped.
Issues
- Whether reversal of the judicial officer’s erroneous order justified aspersions on integrity and personal costs.
Held
- A dispute between advocates over fees should not obstruct a claimant’s settlement. Professional misconduct in taking another lawyer’s brief ordinarily falls for the Bar Council, and the High Court correctly set aside the refusal to record the compromise. (¶ 2–3)
- Higher courts may disapprove legal errors but must exercise restraint before attributing improper motives to subordinate judges. Here the remarks effectively condemned the officer before disciplinary proceedings; administrative reference to the Chief Justice was the proper course if action was thought necessary. (¶ 4–9)
- The adverse remarks were expunged and paragraph 15 deleted. Personal costs of Rs.10,000 were also set aside, since costs against a presiding officer are ordinarily inappropriate and that practice should not be encouraged. (¶¶ 10–11, 13)
- Administrative action had already been dropped, and the appellant did not press relief on that aspect. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; adverse remarks against the appellant expunged, paragraph 15 of the High Court judgment deleted, and Rs.10,000 personal costs set aside. Relief concerning administrative action not pressed.