The Supreme Court on Friday bemoaned what it called a “new trend” of governments maligning judges when some judgments go against them.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, said that while attempts to cast aspersions on judges were earlier resorted to only by private parties, recently governments have also joined the bandwagon.
“Earlier only private parties used to do this against the judges. Now we see this every day...It is a new trend. The government has also started maligning judges. It is unfortunate,” commented the bench, which also comprised justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli.
The comment came when the court came across some unsavoury remarks made in the petition, filed by the Chhattisgarh government against the high court’s decision to quash an FIR in a corruption case. In January this year, the high court quashed the FIR registered against the state’s former principal secretary Aman Singh and his wife for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets. It further observed that the registration of the case was an abuse of the process of law and that the allegations seemed prima facie based upon probabilities.
The case was registered in February 2020 against Singh and his wife following a complaint by Uchit Sharma, who claimed to be an RTI activist. Both the state and Sharma challenged the high court order before the top court.
{{/usCountry}}The case was registered in February 2020 against Singh and his wife following a complaint by Uchit Sharma, who claimed to be an RTI activist. Both the state and Sharma challenged the high court order before the top court.
{{/usCountry}}Aggrieved by certain remarks made by the high court judge in his verdict, the state government made certain unpalatable statements about the judiciary in the case which irked the bench.
“Whatever fight you may have, that is alright. But do not try to malign courts. I am watching in this court also, it is a new trend,” the CJI told senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was appearing for the state government. Dwivedi was quick to respond that he was not pressing any point made against the judiciary in the state’s petition.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharma, also submitted this trend cannot be countenanced. Following brief arguments, the bench adjourned the hearing to April 18.