Islamabad:
The Superior Court has urged the superior courts to exercise “greater caution and judicial restriction” by passing judgments or restrictions on the realization of judges of the courts of first instance.
“The upper courts, daily, stumble upon judgments and orders from the lower courts, and if said judgments and orders are deficient or defective, either by law or, in fact, they are modified, downsured or reserved,” said an order of 12 pages authorized by Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Judge Mazhar directed a bank that put aside a judgment of the Superior Court of Sindh (SHC) in which adverse comments against the administrative judge of an anti -terrorist court (ATC) were approved.
The verdict said that the role and function of the higher courts as appeal/ review courts to listen to appeals that challenge the orders of the courts of first instance is predominantly.
“An inappropriate reason should not be attributed even to a serious mistake made by a judicial officer without facing it and looking for their comments to maintain the judicial community and discipline.
“While it does, the Superior Court must take into account that comments or despising and degrading observations against a member of the subordinate judiciary, even if disbursed, would not completely restore the challenge of the esteem and dignity,” he added.
He said that criticism about a judgment or order must be of a judicial nature, pointing out errors or defects without deviating from temperance and equanimity.
“The court said that judicial restrictions must be approved with the greatest caution and circumspection because said conviction and complaints have an endless or endless impact on the credit of the judicial officers.
“Rather, he always pursues him and causes severe difficulties and contempt in his name and reputation in the judicial service. He not only creates a great deterioration and a sense of guilt in the eyes of his subordinates, but the confidence of the general public in the judicial system is also determined.”
The order indicated that there is a world of difference between a judicial stenosis and a judicial outbreak. The stenosis, he said, appears in a trial considered, while the outbreak is done during the hearings of a case by a judge who cannot control his language, contain his anger and stop his ego.
He said that the illegality or irregularity in the order or trial of a subordinate court can be rectified by the Court of Appeals, which in fact is the premeditated underlying principle to create the right of appeal or revisions in the superior courts under different statutes.
“Another important aspect that cannot be lost sight of is that a judicial officer against whom comments or derogatory restrictions are passed cannot come to defend their own judgment or order; therefore, the superior courts must exercise great precaution and judicial restriction.
He said that in case of any doubt regarding the conduct, the matter can be sent through a separate confidential note for the attention of the President of the Supreme Court, which can then deal with the judicial officer in the exercise of his own sense of judgment.
The sentence indicated that the higher courts must remember that the reproaches/restrictions and deprecations on judgments or orders of the subordinate judiciary have many vulnerabilities; such as, the judicial officer is condemned not informed, which violates the principles of natural justice.
“The principle of natural justice, due process and clean play, and particularly the right to just trial provided as fundamental rights in the Constitution is applied in all areas, even to subordinate judicial officers, who are members of the subordinate judiciary.
“They also, being justice dispensers, should receive the right to a fair trial, instead of being convicted not known,” he said.
He said that a stenosis contained in a sentence or order, whether it is reported in law journals or not, is a verdict in an open court that becomes public and remains thus perpetuity unless it is expelled by a superior court or by the same court.
“Therefore, any disapproval expressed must be expressed in a temperate language, and before passing any stenosis, at least the comments can be called confidentially so that the judicial official does not condemn without knowing it and if the comments/reports are not satisfactory, then the matter can confidentially refer to justice justice for their consideration on the administrative side,” he said.
