Islamabad:
The Superior Court has urged the high lessons to exercise “greater prudence and judicial restriction” while adopting judgments or restrictions on the conduct of judges of the courts of first instance.
“The higher courts, on a daily basis, stumble on the judgments and orders of the lower courts, and if these judgments and orders are deficient or imperfect in law or in fact, are modified, returned or put aside,” said an order of 12 pages written by judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Judge Mazhar led a bench which put aside a judgment of the High Court of Sindh (SHC) in which unfavorable remarks were adopted against the administrative judge of an anti -terrorist court (ATC).
The verdict noted that it is mainly the role and the function of higher courts as the courts of appeal / revision to hear calls contesting the orders of the courts of first instance.
“An inappropriate reason should not be attributed even to a serious error committed by a judicial agent without confronting it and asking for its comments in order to maintain the comotobe and the discipline.
“In doing so, the high court should be aware that contemptuous and degrading remarks or observations against a member of the subordinate judiciary, even if they are deleted, would not completely restore the release of esteem and dignity,” he added.
He declared that criticism of a judgment or an order must be of a judicial nature, emphasizing errors or faults without deviating from temperance and equanimity.
“The court said that judicial restrictions should be adopted with the greatest mistrust and the greatest circumspection because such conviction and denunciations have an endless or endless impact on the credit of the justice officers.
“Rather, it always haunts it and causes serious difficulties and denigration to its name and its reputation in the judicial service. This creates not only a serious alteration and a feeling of guilt in the eyes of its subordinates, but the confidence of the public as a whole in the judicial system is also deteriorated.”
The ordinance noted that there is a world of difference between a judicial shorthand and a judicial explosion. The stenosis, he said, is in a judgment considered while the explosion is made during the hearings of a case by a judge who is unable to control his language, restrict his anger and slow down his ego.
He declared that illegality or irregularity in the order or judgment of a subordinate court may be rectified by the Court of Appeal, which is in fact the premeditated underlying principle to create the right of appeal or revisions before the higher courts under various laws.
“Another important aspect which cannot be lost from sight is only a judicial agent against which denigrant remarks or stenois are adopted cannot defend its own judgment or order; consequently, the High Juridiges should exercise great caution and a judicial reservoir.
He said that in the event of doubt about driving, the case may be sent by a separate confidential note for the attention of the competent chief, who can then deal with the judicial agent in the exercise of his own sense of judgment.
The judgment noted that the high lessons should remember that reproaches / stenois and depreciations on the judgments or orders of the subordinate judicial power have many vulnerabilities; Such as the judicial agent is sentenced incredible, which violates the principles of natural justice.
“The principle of natural justice, regular procedure and fair play, and in particular the right to an equitable trial envisaged as fundamental rights in the Constitution apply to all levels, in particular to the leaders of the magistracy of the subordinate judicial power, who are members of the subordinate judicial power.
“They too, the distributors of justice, should be granted the right to a fair trial, rather than being sentenced unprecedented,” he said.
He indicated that a stenosis contained in a judgment or an order, whether reported in laws in law or not, is a verdict in an open court which becomes public and which remains perpetuity unless it is deleted by a superior court or by the court itself.
“Consequently, any disapproval expressed must be formulated in a temperate language, and before passing a stenosis, at least the comments can be called confidentially so that the judicial agent is not sentenced unprecedented and if the comments / report are not found satisfactory, then it can be referred to the chief judge to be considered on the administrative side,” he said
