SEEMANT KUMAR SINGHversusMAHESH PS & ORS.

                        [2023] 3 S.C.R. 587                            587


                   SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH                                 A
                                 v.
                      MAHESH PS & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2023)
                         MARCH 21, 2023                                B
                 [KRISHNA MURARI AND
              AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
      Bail – Adverse remarks – Expunction of – During the
pendency of bail proceedings of respondent no.1, the High Court
                                                                       C
made adverse remarks against the appellants, who had no lis in the
proceedings – Further, the High Court issued direction for seeking
reports against appellant no.2 during the bail proceedings – On
appeal, held – Remarks made by High Court against appellant no.2
are unreasonable and without justification as appellant no.2 has
no personal involvement in the case – No evidence against appellant    D
no.2 has been analysed and no opportunity has been given to him
to explain himself – Also, appellant no.3 is not a party to the bail
proceedings, it was unreasonable to pass adverse remarks – Further,
the direction issued by the high Court to seek reports against the
appellant no.2 during bail proceedings of respondent no .1 is liable
                                                                       E
to be set aside as no opportunity of hearing was given to appellant
no .2 and the High Court must have confined itself to the issues
relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the bail of respondent
no.1 – Adverse remarks passed by the High Court against the
appellants expunged and order of High Court quashed.
                                                                       F
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD:1. As far as the Appellant No.2 is concerned, the
remarks made by the High Court against him seem to be
unreasonable and without justification. The Appellant No.2 is
merely a government employee of the department that is
conducting the investigation and has no personal involvement           G
with the case. The Appellant No. 2 is not an accused and has
nothing to do with the transaction of the crime, let alone the bail
proceedings. No evidence against him has been analyzed by the
court and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself,
however, scathing and egregious remarks have still been passed         H
                                587
588            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     against him. In such a scenario, this Court finds that the remarks
      passed by the High Court to be unfair and not in the interest of
      justice. [Para 18][594-A-B]
             2. In so far as the Appellant No. 3 is concerned, even though
      he is an accused in the alleged crime, however, what must not be
B     forgotten is the fact that he does not have any lis in the bail
      proceedings, as the same was exclusive to Respondent No.1. In
      such a scenario, where Appellant No.3 was not party to the
      ongoing bail proceedings, this Court finds it to be extremely
      unreasonable for the High Court to pass such adverse remarks
      against him. When no allegations were made against Appellant
C     No.3, and the presumption of innocence is still functional in the
      favor of the Appellant No.3, this Court finds it to be a gross abuse
      of the process of law to pass such adverse remarks against him,
      as such remarks do not just cause injury to his reputation, but
      also has the potential to cause great prejudice to his actual trial.
D     [Paras 19, 20][594-C-F]
            3. The High Court during the bail proceedings of a third
      party are manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and the High Court must
      have confined itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes
      of deciding the bail of the Respondent No.1. A court of bail,
E     especially in cases where the bail is sought for by a third party, is
      not a court that has all the relevant information to pass an order
      on the merits of an unconnected party, and such an order, if
      passed, has the potential to cause great harm to the said party
      without them being afforded an actual and meaningful opportunity
      to defend themselves. It is a well settled principle of law that any
F     party, when being accused of an illegal act, must be given an
      opportunity be fairly heard. This opportunity to be meaningfully
      heard however has not been afforded to the Appellant No.2. [Para
      25][596-E-G]
            Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar (1986) 2 SCC
G           569 : [1986] 2 SCR 470; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal
            (1986) 4 SCC 566 : [1987] 1 SCR 1; Election
            Commission of India v. M. R. Vijaybhaskar (2021) 9
            SCC 770; RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR.
            Sha (2010) 15 SCC 85 : [2010] 9 SCR 1107; State
H           Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan &
       SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS.                               589


      Anr. (2020) 15 SCC 251 : [2020] 2 SCR 553; State of                    A
      Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others
      (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 – relied on.
                         Case law reference
[1986] 2 SCR 470                      relied on              Para 15
                                                                             B
[1987] 1 SCR 1                        relied on              Para 15
(2021) 9 SCC 770                      relied on              Para 17
[2010] 9 SCR 1107                     relied on              Para 22
[2020] 2 SCR 553                      relied on              Para 23
[2011] 15 SCR 540                     relied on              Para 24         C

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
872 of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 4909 of 2022.
                                                                             D
      With
      Criminal Appeal Nos. 873 and 874 of 2023.
      Nikhil Goel, A.A.G., Ranjit Kumar, Amit Kumar, Sr. Advs., Avijit
Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, Mrs. Rekha Bakshi, Shubhranshu Padhi,
Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Niroop Sukrithy, Ovias Moh.,         E
Ms. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Suraj Kaushik, Dharm Singh, S. Shiva
Swaroop, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Advs. for the Appellant.
       K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita
Subramoniam T. R., Likhi Chand Bonsle, Ms. Komal Mundhar, Advs.
for the Respondents.                                                         F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      KRISHNA MURARI, J.
      Leave granted.
       2. The present three Appeals are directed against the interim order   G
dated 07.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru,
(hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Petition No. 4909
of 2022, whereby adverse remarks were made by the Ld. Single Judge
of the High Court against the Appellants, and a direction was issued to
the CBI, mandating them to investigate the past records of one of the
Appellants.                                                                  H
590             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A            3. The Appellant in SLP (CRL.) No. 6253 of 2022 (hereinafter
      referred to as Appellant No. 1), is the State of Karnataka and the
      Appellant in SLP No. 6572 of 2022, one Mr. Seemant Kumar (hereinafter
      referred to as Appellant No. 2), is a senior IPS officer with 26 years of
      service, and is currently the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-
      Corruption Bureau. The Appellant in SLP (Crl) 6573 of 2022, one Mr. J.
B
      Manjunath (hereinafter referred to as Appellant No. 3), is the District
      Collector for the city of Bangalore. The Respondent Mahesh PS
      (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1) .
             4. Briefly, the facts relevant for the present appeals are that during
      the pendency of bail proceedings of Respondent No.1, who is a police
C     officer alleged to have taken a bribe, the High Court vide impugned
      interim order dated 07.07.2022 made adverse remarks against the
      Appellants, who had no lis in the above-mentioned bail proceedings.
             5. On 20.05.2022, an FIR was registered under Section 7(a) of
      the Prevention Of Corruption Act against the Respondent No.1 herein,
D     for allegedly demanding a bribe from the informant. The respondent
      no.1 was subsequently taken into custody.
             6. The respondent No.1 then filed a bail application under Section
      439 Cr.PC in the High Court. Notice was issued by the High Court in
      the said case, and on 22.06.2022, during the bail proceedings, the High
E     Court issued an oral summons against the Appellants herein seeking
      their appearance in court. It is important to note that the Appellant 1 and
      Appellant 2 are not arraigned as accused persons in the said case and
      have no connection with the bail proceedings.
             7. During the same bail proceedings, on 04.07.2022, the High Court
F     made adverse remarks against the Appellants herein. These remarks
      made by the High Court were widely reported in the media and caused
      injury to the reputation of the Appellants.
             8. Subsequently, on 07.07.2022, the High Court while making
      further adverse remarks against the Appellants, also directed the CBI to
G     place a report of the past investigations conducted against the Appellant
      No. 2, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant No.2 to be heard.
             9. It is however important to note that Appellant No.3 stands on a
      slightly different footing from the other Appellants, in so far as that the
      Appellant No.3, after the initial investigation, was arrayed as an Accused
H     in the abovementioned case. In the same breath however, it must also
       SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS.                                591
                [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

be kept in mind that the Appellant No.3, even though is an accused in the     A
said alleged crime, was not a party to the abovementioned bail
proceedings in the High Court.
       10. Through the present Appeals filed before this court, the
Appellants seek for the remarks made by the High Court against them
to be expunged.                                                               B
    QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PRESENT
APPEALS
       11. At the very outset, we would like to clarify that in the present
appeals, we are only concerned with the adverse remarks made by the
High Court against the appellants and the subsequent directions issued        C
to the counsel of CBI against the Appellant No.2. The substantive prayer
for bail sought for by the respondent No.1 is not being entertained by
this court at the present, and the proceedings for the same are ongoing
in the High Court.
      12. In the aftermath of the aforesaid proceedings, this court is        D
now tasked with answering two questions in the present Appeals.
      I. Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court
         against the appellants during the bail proceedings of the
         respondent No. 1 is liable to be expunged?
                                                                              E
      II. Whether the direction issued by the High Court to seek
          for reports against the Appellant No.2 during the bail
          proceedings of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set
          aside?
      ANALYSIS
                                                                              F
      ISSUE I-Whether the adverse remarks made by the High
      Court during the bail proceedings of the respondent No.1 is
      liable to be expunged?
      13. The High Court, on 04.07.2022 and 07.07.2022, on two separate
occasions, during the bail proceedings of the Respondent No.1, made           G
adverse remarks against the Appellants herein, which is said to have
caused great harm to their reputation. Due to the proceedings being
broadcasted on the High Court’s YouTube channel, the said comments
have received wide publicity, and several media and news outlets have
picked up on those comments and reported the same.
                                                                              H
592                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A             14. It is to be noted that bail proceedings, unlike a full criminal
      trial, are burdened with the task of only forming a prima facie view on
      the merits of the case. In such a circumstance when the evidence is not
      fully analyzed, and a presumption of innocence is still operational in favour
      of the accused, the courts must then be extremely cautious in passing
      adverse remarks against the accused. This becomes especially important
B
      in cases where the party against whom the remarks are passed do not
      have a lis in the said proceedings, for such comments, especially if passed
      by constitutional courts, can cause great injury to the reputation of the
      parties at the receiving end of such remarks. This burden of caution on
      the courts has been held in a catena of judgments by this Court.
C            15. In the case of Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar1, this
      Court, while examining certain remarks made by a High Court stated
      that the courts, while passing adverse remarks, must be extremely careful
      and must resort to passing such remarks only if it is necessary to come
      to fair conclusion in order to meet the ends of justice. The relevant
D     paragraph of the said judgment is being extracted herein:
               “In expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must
               be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint,
               (…) the judges should not normally depart from sobriety,
               moderation and reserve and harsh or disparaging remarks
E              are not to be made against the parties or authorities unless it
               is really necessary for the decision of the case as
               integral part thereof”
             16. In the case of State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal2, wherein
      this court was examining certain disparaging remarks made by the High
F     Court against the State officials held that judges, must refrain from passing
      adverse remarks, as the same can cause great mischief and might become
      an antithesis to the ends of achieving justice. The relevant observations
      from the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced herein:
               “We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use
G              strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of
               parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety,
               moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to
               recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and

      1
          (1986) 2 SCC 569
H     2
          (1986) 4 SCC 566
          SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS.                            593
                   [KRISHNA MURARI, J. ]

         disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may         A
         be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do
         considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here,
         in the present case, the observations made and strictures
         passed by B.M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and
         unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.
                                                                             B
      17. Further, In the case of Election Commission of India v. M.R.
Vijaybhaskar3, while examining certain adverse remarks made by the
High Court, held that judges must exercise extreme caution while passing
remarks in court that may susceptible to misinterpretation. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is being produced hereunder:
                                                                             C
         “Having said that, we must emphasise the need for Judges to
         exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which
         may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on
         the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial
         propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial
         process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial       D
         language is a window to a conscience sensitive to
         constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance,
         language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human
         dignity. The power of judicial review is entrusted to the High
         Courts under the Constitution. So high is its pedestal that it      E
         constitutes a part of the basic features of the Constitution.
         Yet responsibility bears a direct co-relationship with the nature
         and dimensions of the entrustment of power. A degree of
         caution and circumspection by the High Court would have
         allayed a grievance of the nature that has been urged in the
         present case. All that needs to be clarified is that the oral       F
         observations during the course of the hearing have passed
         with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record.
         The EC has a track record of being an independent
         constitutional body which shoulders a significant burden in
         ensuring the sanctity of electoral democracy. We hope the           G
         matter can rest with a sense of balance which we have
         attempted to bring.”
      18. In light of the aforesaid decisions, as far as the Appellant
No.2 is concerned, the remarks made by the High Court against him
3
    (2021) 9 SCC 770                                                         H
594            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     seem to be unreasonable and without justification. The Appellant No.2
      is merely a government employee of the department that is conducting
      the investigation and has no personal involvement with the case. The
      Appellant No. 2 is not an accused and has nothing to do with the
      transaction of the crime, let alone the bail proceedings. No evidence
      against him has been analyzed by the court and no opportunity has been
B
      given to him to explain himself, however, scathing and egregious remarks
      have still been passed against him. In such a scenario, we find the remarks
      passed by the High Court to be unfair and not in the interest of justice.
             19. In so far as the Appellant No. 3 is concerned, even though he
      is an accused in the alleged crime, however, what must not be forgotten
C     is the fact that he does not have any lis in the bail proceedings, as the
      same was exclusive to Respondent No.1. In such a scenario, where
      Appellant No.3 was not party to the ongoing bail proceedings, we find it
      to be extremely unreasonable for the High Court to pass such adverse
      remarks against him.
D            20. In the bail proceedings of Respondent No.1, because the
      Appellant No.3 was not a party, he did not have the opportunity to place
      his submissions on record for the court to peruse the same. No specific
      allegations against Appellant No.3 were made before the High Court,
      since the bail proceedings, and the submissions of the counsels in
E     furtherance of the said bail proceedings, were only limited to Respondent
      No.1. In this context, when no allegations were made against Appellant
      No.3, and the presumption of innocence is still functional in the favor of
      the Appellant No.3, we find it to be a gross abuse of the process of law
      to pass such adverse remarks against him, as such remarks do not just
      cause injury to his reputation, but also has the potential to cause great
F     prejudice to his actual trial.
            ISSUE II-Whether the direction issued by the High Court to
            seek for reports against the Appellant No.2 during the bail
            proceedings of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside?

G            21. As has been mentioned above, the Appellant No.2, who is
      merely an employee of the institution that is handling the investigation of
      the alleged crime, had no lis in the abovementioned bail proceedings.
      The High Court vide an oral summons directed the presence of the
      Appellant No.2, to which he complied. After being summoned, the High
      Court, without allowing the Appellant No.2 a chance to be heard, and
H
          SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS.                             595
                   [KRISHNA MURARI, J. ]

without going through the proper procedure, issued a direction to the         A
counsel of CBI to place reports against the Appellant No.2. At the sake
of repetition, it must be kept in mind that all of this had happened within
Section 439 Cr.PC proceedings, and that too against a person unconnected
to the accused.
       22. In the case of RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR.             B
Sha4,the Reserve Bank Of India challenged an order passed by the
High Court during an application under section 439 of the CrPC, wherein
directions were issued to the bank to distribute the money it recovered
from the accused. This court, while examining these directions held that
the High Court must have confined itself to the issues relevant for the
purposes of deciding bail. The relevant observation of this Court is being    C
extracted hereunder:
         “We are of the opinion that the far-reaching consequences
         of the directions of the High Court are in a way beyond the
         scope of an application for bail filed by an accused under
         Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High           D
         Court, as much as anyone else, must stay confined to the issues
         relevant to the matter before it. It was thus not open to the
         High Court to pass orders which could affect the working of
         banks all over the country. It has been pointed out by Mr
         Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel for the           E
         appellant that it is for this reason that Reserve Bank of India
         had filed this appeal.”
      23. In the case of State Represented by Inspector of Police v.
M. Murugesan & Anr5, this Court held that in cases where a separate
mechanism exists, the court under its inherent powers, especially in          F
context of bail proceedings, cannot issue directions that are outside the
purview of deciding the grant or rejection of bail. The relevant
observations made by this court are being reproduced herein:
         “We find that the learned Single Judge has collated data from
         the State and made it part of the order after the decision [of       G
         the bail application, as if the Court had the inherent
         jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving
         the criminal justice system in the State. The jurisdiction of the
4
    (2010) 15 SCC 85
5
    (2020) 15 SCC 251                                                         H
596               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A              court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not
               to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the
               Hon’ble Judge was laudable but the jurisdiction exercised
               was clearly erroneous. The effort made by the Hon’ble Judge
               may be academically proper to be presented at an appropriate
               forum but such directions could not be issued under the colour
B
               of office of the court.”
            24. Further, in the case of State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh
      Bhullar and Others6, where after deciding a criminal appeal, the High
      Court continued to pass orders with respect to other offenders in
      unconnected cases, this court held that such invocation of jurisdiction
C     outside the purview of the main case at hand was unjust. The relevant
      paragraph of the said judgment is being produced herein:
               “An inherent power is not an omnibus for opening a Pandora’s
               box, that too for issues that are foreign to the main context.
               The invoking of the power has to be for a purpose that is
D              connected to a proceeding and not for sprouting an altogether
               new issue. A power cannot exceed its own authority beyond
               its own creation.”
             25. In light of the abovementioned facts, we are of the opinion
      that the actions of the High Court during the bail proceedings of a third
E     party are manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and the High Court must have
      confined itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the
      bail of the Respondent No.1. A court of bail, especially in cases where
      the bail is sought for by a third party, is not a court that has all the
      relevant information to pass an order on the merits of an unconnected
F     party, and such an order, if passed, has the potential to cause great harm
      to the said party without them being afforded an actual and meaningful
      opportunity to defend themselves. It is a well settled principle of law that
      any party, when being accused of an illegal act, must be given an
      opportunity be fairly heard. This opportunity to be meaningfully heard
      however has not been afforded to the Appellant No.2, and hence we
G     hold issue 2 in favour of the Appellant No.2.
               CONCLUSION
            26. The legal system in general, and the judicial system in particular,
      has ushered into a new age of accessibility and transparency due to the
      6
H         (2011) 14 SCC 770
       SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS.                                   597
                [KRISHNA MURARI, J. ]

adoption of virtual hearings and live telecasting of open court proceedings.     A
These changes in the judiciary have ensured that the courts as redressal
mechanisms have become more accessible to the common man than
ever before. The limitations of physical infrastructure, that has constrained
the courts to a physical location, has often been cited as one of the main
roadblocks in the path towards access to justice. This roadblock, however,
                                                                                 B
has now been cleared due to the availability of technology and the
adoption of the same. This never before seen transparency in the judicial
system, while it brings with it great benefits, it also attaches with it a
stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court
proceedings. Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of
court proceedings, now have ramifications that are far reaching, and as          C
can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the reputation
of the parties involved. In such a circumstance, it is essential for the
courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against
the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right
forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
                                                                                 D
        27. In light of the abovementioned discussions, not only are the
adverse remarks passed by the High Court against the Appellants is
liable to be expunged, but the impugned interim order itself is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 stands
quashed.
                                                                                 E
       28. Further, in light of the previous order dated 18.07.2022 passed
by this court, we presume that the bail proceedings of the Respondent
No.1 stands concluded. However, since there is no indication of the
outcome of the bail proceedigs, if the same has not already been decided,
we request the High Court to expeditiously conclude the bail proceedings
in accordance with law on its own merits without being prejudiced or             F
influenced by this judgment. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.

Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H