Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In the case where the petitioner challenged the order dated 08-09-2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’), Samba, to the extent of passing of strictures against her when she could not attend the JJB’s proceeding to argue a bail matter as she was engaged before another Court, recording statements of prosecution, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., directed to expunge the remarks made against the petitioner and observed that the Courts were expected to be tolerant in dealing with minor lapses of public servants and merely because a public prosecutor was unable to argue a matter, it did not warrant the passing of strictures.
Background:
The petitioner was posted as the Assistant Public Prosecutor (‘APP’) in the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate (‘Special Magistrate’), Samba, but on 08-09-2025, the APP of the JJB was on leave and therefore, the additional charge of the JJB was assigned to the petitioner. On the said date, the petitioner was busy recording the statements of prosecution witnesses in the Court of Special Magistrate, which continued up to the expiry of the Court timings.
While the petitioner was engaged in the Court of Special Magistrate, she was scheduled to argue a bail application pending before the JJB. The JJB took her non-appearance as an act of dereliction of duty which resulted in passing of certain disparaging remarks against her and the matter was directed to be brought to the notice of Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kathua-Samba, with a recommendation to take a strict note of the matter on account of her improper, negligent and unbecoming conduct.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 12 SCC 689, wherein it was held that “the Court might not be justified in making adverse remarks or passing strictures against a person unless it was necessary for the disposal of the case to animadvert to those aspects in regard to the remarks that have been made. Adverse remarks should not be made lightly as it might seriously affect the character, competence and integrity of an individual in purported desire to render justice to the other party”.
The Court also considered State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that any disparaging remarks and direction to initiate departmental action against the persons whose conduct came into consideration before the Court would have serious impact on their official career.
The Court observed that normally the Courts should avoid passing strictures and disparaging remarks against Government officials when they have not been afforded an opportunity to explain or defend themselves. The adverse remarks could only be made if it was absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case and where there was material on record to suggest the complicity of the officers.
The Court noted that in the present case, there was some communication gap between the Presiding Officer of the JJB and the petitioner which resulted in the passing of impugned order. It seemed that JJB, without ascertaining the reason as to the absence of the petitioner, had proceeded to pass strictures against her and the petitioner was unable to properly explain the circumstances before the JJB.
The Court opined that the Courts were expected to be highly tolerant, magnanimous and large hearted in ignoring trifle misdemeanor of a litigant, lawyer or a public servant. Merely because a public prosecutor was unable to argue a matter or seek time to prepare the brief, did not call for passing of strictures against him or her, even if it was assumed that his or her conduct might not be up to the mark, that too in a case where the accused was not behind the bars and heavens were not going to fall if the case was adjourned for a day. Thus, the Court observed that the remarks made by the JJB against the petitioner were uncalled for and were not necessary for the disposal of the case.
The Court emphasised that time and again this Court had cautioned the Courts to eschew the tendency to pass strictures and remarks against the public servants unless the same was absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case and the concerned officer has been put to notice.
Consequently, the Court, while allowing the petition, directed to expunge of the disparaging remarks made by the JJB against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 08-09-2025. It was further ordered that the Deputy Director of Prosecution must not take any further action against the petitioner based on the impugned remarks.
[Anu Charak v. State (UT of J&K), CM (M) No. 265 of 2025, decided on 22-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ayushman Kotwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Vishal Bharti Dy. AG.
