Moderation, Reserve: Did SC Contradict Its Own Principles in Zakia Jafri Order?
The QuintIt is true that a court's observations, no-matter how vaguely worded they may be, carry great weight. In the absence of firm directions, even a whisper of an aspersion by a court of law, can be construed in a variety of ways that have far reaching consequences. This is perhaps why, in the Mohammad Naim case, the Supreme Court had expunged certain remarks against the entire police force made by a High Court judge in a case pertaining to only one police officer. The top court had thereby gone on to say: "If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by this court. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made.” Further the Supreme Court noted that while making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant for the courts to consider:
History of this topic
Navratri Communal Clash: Kheda SP Defends Public Flogging; Says Accused Created Atmosphere Of Terror, Lawful Action Taken To Prevent Riots
Live Law
Undesirable For Courts To Make Remarks Censuring Action Of Police Officers Unless Strictly Relevant For The Case: Delhi High Court
Live LawDiscover Related
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments- Part 3 [51 to 75]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/12/18/577189-100-important-judgments-of-2024-part-3.jpg)
