The Supreme Court today expunged certain adverse remarks made against former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala by a single judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana while observing that courts are not expected to give any kind of prejudicial remarks against a person, especially so, when he is not a party before it.
"When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to.
"The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said," a bench of justices Anil R Dave and Dipak Misra said.
Also Read
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Chautala seeking expunging of remarks made by the single judge in a 2009 judgement on a petition in which he was not a party saying recording of such observations was totally impermissible, as it fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice.
The single judge had made the adverse remarks while deciding a petition filed by one Kanwar Bhan working as Assistant Registrar of cooperative societies in Haryana.
On February 4, 2001 during a state function, 'Sarkar Aapke Dwar', Chautala received a complaint about the working of Bhan. Chautala announced Bhan's suspension at a press conference the same day. His suspension was followed by him being charge sheetedin March 2002. He was however, reinstated pending inquiry after he moved court by way of a writ petition.
Bhan superannuated in 2005 and was granted provisional pension, provident fund but other retirement benefits were withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
In 2007, on Bhan's petition, high court asked government to complete the inquiry in six months. Since the same was not done, in 2009 a single judge of the high court set aside the charge sheet filed against him and the punishment with further directions to release all the pension and pensionary benefits due to him within a period of one month with ten per cent annual interest from the due date to the date of payment.
The single Judge had made certain observations against Chautala.
Chautala's plea against it before the division bench was also rejected following which he moved the Supreme Court.
