In Brief
A practicing lawyer with 17 years' standing at the Uttarakhand High Court appealed to expunge disparaging remarks made against him by a judge in four separate cases, recorded without notice or opportunity to respond. The Supreme Court held that adverse remarks against counsel must meet three tests: the counsel must have opportunity to be heard, there must be evidentiary basis, and the remarks must be necessary to the case's decision. The court found the remarks unnecessary, not integral to the decisions, and seemingly based on personal bias. It expunged them, emphasizing that judges must exercise restraint and sobriety, unwarranted remarks violate natural justice principles, and leaving them unexpunged would unfairly damage the counsel's professional reputation and career.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.