Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has observed the adverse remarks should not be passed against public officials unless necessary in the matter of State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co. 

Background

• In the present case Shikha Trading Company (STC) filed a Writ Petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC) against the illegal sealing of its shop by the officers of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab in 2010.
• The petition was disposed of with following directions:
• As during the pendency of the petition, the shop of STC was desealed, it rendered the petition infructuous.
• That the officer of the State posted as Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner (AETC Ludhiana-I) had filed an affidavit taking a false defence, hence proceedings, criminal in nature, be initiated against him with the registration of First Information Report (FIR).
• The present appeal is directed against the second part of the above order i.e., in pursuance of the criminal registration of FIR.
• The learned senior counsel appearing for the aggrieved party has urged, amongst other grounds, that the impugned directions were passed without affording an opportunity to the concerned officer to explain the relevant facts and circumstances.
• Furthermore, an argument was put forward that issuing an order of this nature against a State Officer who has initiated a campaign against tax evaders could lead to a demoralizing impact on other upright officers.
• The respondent had not mentioned any adverse statement regarding the state or against any functionary of the State of Punjab, hence there is no opposition to the present appeal.

Court’s Observations

• The SC bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol after perusing the records produced in Court, was of the considered view that this matter needs to put a quietus to as there seemed no basis for the HC to arrive at such a conclusion.
• The bench further noted that the officer was neither made party to the dispute, nor was he given an opportunity to show cause therefore while relying on an earlier precedent in case the of State of UP v. Mohammad Naim (1964), the court observed that such remarks “Due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”. It further flows therefrom that “adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”.

Adverse Remarks

• According to Rule 8 (2) of All India Services (Confidential Roll) Rules, 1970 an adverse remark means a remark which indicates the defects or deficiencies in the quality of work or performance or conduct of an officer but does not include any word or words in the nature of counsel or advice to the officer.

Power to Expunge Remarks

• To expunge remarks refers to the process of removing or deleting certain comments, statements, or observations from a written document or record.
• This is typically done to eliminate content that is considered inappropriate, irrelevant, or objectionable.
• The SC in Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr. (1996) reiterated the three tests laid down in the case State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim (1964) in regard to expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for consideration before a court of law to be decided by it.
• The tests are:
  1. Whether the party whose conduct is in question, is present before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself?
  2. Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks?
  3. Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to condemn the conduct?