Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

State Of Bihar And Another v. Nilmani Sahu And Another

Supreme Court Of India

May 13, 1999

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns applications filed by a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court who felt aggrieved by certain observations made by the Supreme Court while disposing of a Special Leave Petition arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The substantive dispute in the Special Leave Petition had already reached finality, and the applications were directed specifically at the language used in the Supreme Court’s prior judgment (notably paragraph 6).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the expression used by the Supreme Court in its prior judgment—describing the High Court Judge’s view as “most atrocious”—was inappropriate and should be deleted as unnecessary to the decision and inconsistent with judicial dignity.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

The applicant, through learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious” cast a stigma against the applicant.
It was contended that such an expression was not necessary for deciding the matter.

State of Bihar’s Submissions

Counsel for the State of Bihar fairly stated that the expression in question should be deleted.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court declined to revisit the merits of the underlying land acquisition matter because it had already attained finality. The Court focused instead on the propriety of the language used in its own earlier judgment.

After hearing counsel and considering the earlier judgment, the Court concluded that the expression describing the High Court Judge’s view as “most atrocious” was “wholly inappropriate.” It emphasized that when the Supreme Court uses language critical of a High Court judgment, it must be consistent with the dignity of the person concerned. In view of this assessment—and noting the State’s concession that the words should be removed—the Court directed deletion of the quoted expression from paragraph 6 of its prior judgment.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED (TO THE EXTENT OF DELETION OF OBSERVATION): The Court directed that the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious” appearing in paragraph 6 of the earlier Supreme Court judgment be deleted, and ordered the interlocutory applications accordingly.

The direct consequence is that the impugned remark is removed from the Supreme Court’s prior judgment, addressing the applicant’s grievance regarding stigma and impropriety of language. The opinion does not indicate any broader precedential implications beyond this corrective action, and no new precedent is articulated.

Show all summary ...

1. These are applications by Sitting Judge of the Patna High Court who feels aggrieved by some observations made by this Court in disposing of a special leave petition arising out of a land acquisition proceedings. The State of Bihar is represented by Mr B.B Singh. Mr Dipankar Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious” casts stigma against the applicant and in fact it was not necessary for the decision. We need not go into the merits of the matter since that has reached finality. But having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment of this Court, we think possibly the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious”, in the judgment is wholly inappropriate. When this Court uses an expression against the judgment of the High Court it must be in keeping with the dignity of the person concerned. Mr Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar fairly stated that the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious” should be deleted. We, accordingly, direct that the expression “we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, Justice P.K Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious” in para 6 of the judgment of this Court be deleted.

2. IAs are ordered accordingly.