SUPREME COURT DISAPPROVES UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT JUDGE'S PROCLIVITY IN MAKING UNJUSTIFIED REMARKS AGAINST ADVOCATES

The Supreme Court in the case Siddhartha Singh v.Assistant Collector First Class or Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.observed and has set aside two orders of the Uttarakhand High Court that contained adverse remarks which are made by a High Court judge against an advocate.

- 

The bench comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the present matter.

The bench in the case observed and has ruled that the comments made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the High Court with regards to the advocate's conduct were unjustified and illegal.

Adding to it, the court stated that, 'The said court disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of."

The court in two appeals for the removal of the remarks set aside orders dated December 1, 2020, and December 7, 2021, passed by the High Court.

Therefore, the civil appeals arose from orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in CLMA No.14165/2018 and WPMS No.763/2010.