Fear cannot take over judge’s discretion: SC

THe sublime margaret court on mon held that in a commonwealth, dread cannot take precedence over a judge’s discretion in deciding cases as it reversed the order dismissing a Madhya Pradesh district judge on the allegation that he wrongly exercised his discretion in granting bail in excise cases.A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan said, “Courts of the district judiciary wield powers necessary for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India and when their autonomy is compromised by higher courts and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, democracy and the rule of law suffer.”The court was dealing with a petition filed by Nirbhay Singh Suliya who was dismissed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khargone in 2014 for showing “double standards” in passing bail orders.Giving separate but concurring opinions to set aside the dismissal order, justice Viswanathan said, “A fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which rule of law rests.”Justice Viswanathan’s 34-page ruling asked high courts to exercise “due care and caution” in initiating proceedings and subjecting a judicial office through the “ordeal” of a disciplinary prosecution only because an order is wrong or there is an error of judgment, without anything more. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to every high court.Justice Pardiwala, in a short, four-page concurring view said that corruption in the judiciary at any level is “intolerable” but departmental proceedings cannot be initiated on mere suspicion or for passing a wrong order without anything more to doubt the integrity of the judicial officer.“Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail,” he said.Underlining the need to protect judicial officers in rendering decisions fearlessly, justice Pardiwala said, “Over a period of time, the trial court judges have exhibited a tendency to shirk from their solemn judicial function and responsibility when it comes to exercising discretion in matters relating to bail…It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge, of some administrative action being taken that even in a deserving case, well within the principles of law, bail is declined.”This impacts not just the judge but the judicial system as in deserving cases too, trial courts do not grant bail which leads to filing of bail pleas in high courts and Supreme Court. “For functioning of a democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount,” said justice Pardiwala, while reminding high courts that a judicial officer of the district judiciary works in a “charged atmosphere”.He endorsed the setting aside of the dismissal order as held by justice Viswanathan who said, “We make bold to record a finding that on the available material, no reasonable person would have reached the conclusion that enquiry officer reached.” He further directed that Suliya will be “deemed to have continued in service” till his age of superannuation and ordered payment of full back wages with all consequential benefits along with six percent interest within eight weeks.The bench acknowledged that the judgment will go a long way in protecting the judicial officers from unnecessary departmental action. Justice Pardiwala said, “To dunk an officer into the puddle of doubtful integrity, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material…only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label of doubtful integrity.”The petitioner represented by senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu and advocate advocate Kanu Agrawal had argued that the bail order cannot be a ground to conclude “misconduct” in the absence of any accompanying material to suggest corruption. At best, the former judicial officer argued that it can be treated as an error of judgment. He was accused of allowing bail in some excise cases where seizure was over 50 bulk litres of liquor while denying the same to similarly-placed accused in separate cases.In 1987, Suliya was appointed a Civil Judge and became additional district and sessions judge, Khargon in 2011. The same year a complaint was filed against him alleging corruption in deciding bail matters arising under the MP Excise Act. An enquiry was conducted under the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated. An administrative committee recommended removal which was approved by the high court following which he was removed from service with effect from September 2, 2014.It was challenging this order, Suliya approached the MP high court which dismissed his petition in July 2024. The high court concluded there was material to show that Suliya adopted “double standards” in deciding the bail pleas. It found no fault with the process in which inquiry was conducted against him but on the question of punishment, it refused to interfere as the Full Court (comprising all judges) of the high court had passed the decision of dismissal based on the evidence before it.The top court held that the HC erred in not interfering with the dismissal order. The action against Suliya was initiated on a complaint filed by a local resident which the court found to be directed against a court official. The top court noted the danger of persons, including disgruntled members of the Bar, filing or engineering false and frivolous complaints. The court said that if such an action is by a lawyer, apart from proceedings for contempt of court, reference to the Bar Council should be made for disciplinary action that should be expeditiously decided.