Islamabad:
The supreme court has called on high courts to exercise “greater caution and legal restraint” while adopting decisions or strings about the implementation of court court judges.
“Higher courts, on a daily basis, stumble upon judgments and orders from the lower courts, and if such judgments and orders turn out to be defective or defective either in the law or actually, changes, detained or is set aside,” said a 12-page order written by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Justice Mazhar was heading for a bench that set aside a SINDH High Court (SHC) judgment in which negative comments were adopted against the administrative judge of an anti-terrorism court (ATC).
The judgment noted that it is predominantly the role and function of the overall court as appeal/ audit court to hear appeals that challenge orders from dishes.
“A wrong motive should not be attributed to a serious mistake made by a legal officer without confronting him and seeking his comments to maintain judicial comity and discipline.
“While doing so, High Court should be aware that the mocking and condescending remarks or observations against a member of the subordinate judiciary, even if it were postponed, would not completely restore the abolition of esteem and dignity,” it added.
It said criticism of a judgment or order must be legal in nature and point out errors or deficiencies without deviating from temperament and equality.
“The court said that judicial strings must be transferred with the greatest duration and circumvention because such condemnation and terminations have endless or infinite influence on the credit officers’ credit.
“Rather, it always haunts him and causes severe difficulty and difference between his name and reputation in the judiciary. It not only creates serious deterioration and a sense of guilt in his subordinate eyes, but the public’s confidence in the great in the judicial system also worsens.”
The order noted that there is a world of difference between a judicial strict and a court outbreak. The tightening said, it speaks in a considered judgment, while the outbreak is done during hearings by a case by a judge who is unable to control his tongue, limit his anger and limit his ego.
It said that the illegality or irregularity of the order or judgment of a subordinate court can be corrected by the court of appeal, which is in fact the overall underlying principle of creating the right to appeal or revisions in the overall courts in accordance with different articles of association.
“Another important aspect that cannot be lost by the sight of is that a legal officer, against which it is adopted to lower remarks or strings, cannot defend his own judgment or order; therefore the high courts must exhibit great caution and judicial restraint.
It said in case of doubt about behavior, the case can be sent through a separate confidential note for the attention of the relevant Chief Justice, who can then handle the judicial officer in the exercise of his own fine judgment.
The judgment noted that the high courts should remember that blame/strings and depreciation of judgments or orders from the subordinate judiciary have many vulnerabilities; Such as the judicial officer is condemned unheard of, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
“The principle of natural justice, proper process and fair play, and especially the right to fair trials planned as fundamental rights in the constitution, apply everywhere, including legal officers for subordinate judiciary who are members of the subordinate judiciary.
“They are also to be dispensers of justice, must be assigned the right to a fair trial instead of being condemned unheard of,” it said.
It said a tightening contained in a judgment or order, whether reported in the Law Journers or not, is a judgment in an open court that becomes public and then remains for eternity unless it is expelled by an overall court or by the court itself.
“Therefore, any rejection that is expressed should be slept in temperate language, and before adopting any tightening, at least comments can be called confidential so that the judicial officer may not be condemned and if the comments/report are not satisfactory, case can
