GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English
Powered by cricketnext logo
»
2-min read

Dishonest Recording of Proceedings is Greatest Injustice: Delhi High Court

A judge who does not record court proceedings “honestly and fairly” does the greatest injustice to litigants, the Delhi High Court has observed while transferring a corruption case from one trial court to another.

Press Trust Of India

Updated:January 8, 2017, 10:40 AM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Dishonest Recording of Proceedings is Greatest Injustice: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court. (Picture courtesy: Getty Images)

New Delhi: A judge who does not record court proceedings “honestly and fairly” does the greatest injustice to litigants, the Delhi High Court has observed while transferring a corruption case from one trial court to another.

The high court, which appreciated the efforts of the special judge to expedite the trial in the case, said it does not mean that while doing so the lower court can act in a “brazen and uncompassionate manner”.

“A judge who does not honestly and fairly record the proceedings, does the greatest injustice to parties. A judge is supposed to have no personal interest in a case being tried or dealt with by him. He is always expected to truthfully record the proceedings conducted by him,” Justice Vipin Sanghi said.

“It is for this reason that the proceedings recorded by a judge in his orders are accepted as true. If a judge breaches this trust reposed in him, it reflects on his credibility and on his independence and impartiality,” the high court said.

The court passed the order while transferring a 16-year-old graft case from the court of a special CBI judge to another trial court.

The high court also reminded the special judge of the aphorism that ‘justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done’.

The high court agreed with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, an accused in the graft case, that the way the trial judge was conducting the proceedings “smacks of bias” and there was reasonable apprehension that he would not get justice.

“It is clear to me that the special judge, in his haste to conclude the trial, and even otherwise, had conducted the proceedings unfairly and his approach in the case, and the orders passed by him, disqualify him from proceeding any further in the matter. I am satisfied that a fair and impartial trial of the petitioner accused cannot be held before the special judge… in the present case,” the judge said.

Read full article
Next Story
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp

Live TV