SC axes judge for giving verdicts without dictating full judgments
New Delhi, Apr 12, 2023
A civil judge in Karnataka used to pronounce concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of judgment being penned or dictated by him to give reasons and when inquiry was conducted, he blamed his stenographer for negligent and inefficient work due to which judgment had to be retyped causing delay.
Terming his defence as "Panchatantra story" which cannot be believed and relied upon, the Supreme Court has said the judge was not fit for the judiciary and ordered his sacking. A bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said a judicial officer is not supposed to pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared.
In this case the full court of the HC had on its administrative side taken a decision to terminate the job of the judge after charges against him were proved in an inquiry held against him. But a division bench of the same HC quashed his termination order passed by its full court and ordered his reinstatement.
Observing that the division bench order "is nothing but a veiled attack on the full court of the HC", the apex court was not convinced with the findings of the HC's judicial order for certifying the judge as an innocent and honest officer without any basis.
"The defence taken by the respondent that the lack of experience and the inefficiency on the part of the stenographer has to be blamed, for the whole text of the judgment not getting ready even after several days of pronouncement of the result in open court, was entirely unacceptable. But unfortunately, the HC not only accepted this panchatantra story, but also went to the extent of blaming the administration for not examining the stenographer as a witness. Such an approach is wholly unsustainable. If it was the case of the respondent that the entire blame lay upon the stenographer, it was for him to have summoned the stenographer as a witness. The high court unfortunately reversed the burden of proof," the bench said.
The top court said that the HC was swayed away unduly by the animosity attributed by the judge to a member of the local Bar and the assistant public prosecutor in granting him relief but said that even then, such ill-will and motive may not make the conduct of the judge in not preparing judgments but pronouncing the outcome of the case, a condonable conduct.
"All that the respondent has done in the departmental inquiry is just to pass on the responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer. We do not know how the findings with regard to such serious charges have been completely white-washed by the HC in the impugned judgment," it said.
It said gross negligence and callousness on the part of the judge in not preparing/dictating judgments is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer and allowed the plea of HC administration which challenged the order by its division bench on the judicial side.
[The Times of India]
