Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010185732025 2025:GAU-AS:11139-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4747/2025 RANJAN BHUYAN S/O- LATE JAGANNATH BHUYAN, R/O- RUP KONWAR PATH, VIP ROAD, CHACHAL, GUWAHATI- P.O- HENGRABARI, P.S- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, PIN-781036, ASSAM VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS. REP. BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWHATI-01 3:CJMKAMRUP, AMINGAON KAMRUP PIN- 4:ADDL. CJM KAMRUP, AMINGAON PIN-78103 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. Deuri, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No.1. : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate/ Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, Advocate for respondent No.2. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 20.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, who is Page No.# 2/5 the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon, against whom, it is submitted, an unwarranted remark has been made in the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon in D.V. Case No.100/2019. The prayer of the petitioner is to expunge those remarks. From the perusal of the order dated 28.07.2025, it appears that the learned Presiding Judge was not happy with the conduct of the Officer-in- Charge of Goroimari Police Station, who was directed to appear personally on 30.06.2025, to show cause as to why necessary action be not taken against him for non-compliance of an earlier order of the Court. The copy of the said order was also marked to the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon/petitioner for information and necessary action regarding non-execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the accused person/respondent in that case. However, on 30.06.2025, the date fixed, it was learnt that the copy of the order dated 29.05.2025, requiring the presence of the Officer-in-Charge of Goroimari Police Station, was misplaced and, therefore, there was no appearance. Later, the Officer-in-Charge of Goroimari Police Station was directed not to be negligent in the matter. Still, the Officer-in-Charge of Goroimari Police Station did not appear before the Court, forcing the Court to issue a bailable warrant of arrest against him for procuring his attendance of the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). While concluding, the learned Judge recorded as follows:- “Record also reveals that in this case, the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup Amingaon was also informed about the conduct of O.C. Goroimari PS by sending the copy of order dated 29.05.2025 and 30.06.2025 but Superintendent of Police, Kamrup Amingaon also shown his unconcern and laxity in this matter. (Emphasis provided by us) Page No.# 3/5 Therefore considering the alarming trend in this Kamrup District regarding the non-compliance of the orders of the Court by the respective I.O’s and O.C’s, the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup Amingaon is directed to take a note of the matter and take necessary action against all the police stations under his jurisdiction so as to ensure that the police officers, I.O’s and O.C’s shall comply with the order of the Court.” From a perusal of the extracted paragraph of the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon, it would appear that the comment on the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon/ petitioner is only to the extent of his remaining unconcerned in the matter and displaying laxity in the administration as also in the execution of the orders of the Court. This, to our mind, is not stigmatic or disproportionate to the fact situation in the case. We wonder whether it could be called an adverse comment on the petitioner. True it is that any adverse comment against a person ought to be eschewed in judicial orders if such comments are not necessary for the disposal of the case on facts. This proscription is more applicable for persons who are not the parties to the proceedings. The only justification for any adverse comment in an order/judgment would be its relevance and the necessity for adjudication of the case. Even in that case, the person/institution commented upon, has to be given an opportunity of placing his version on record. The line of judicial decisions over the subject would require another reason to be factored in by a Judge deciding a case, namely, whether remark in the process of adjudication would serve a public or legal purpose and that it should not merely be a mechanical act of cracking a whip on such person or institution. Page No.# 4/5 It cannot be lost sight of that while adjudicating a matter, there could be condemnation and approbation as well. It is not expected of every Judicial Officer to follow any special way of couching his/her orders and a Judicial Officer has to be given complete liberty to decide a case. Many a times, expressions would depend upon the felicity of the language possessed by the concerned Judge or the fact situation or some other circumstances where a Judge might not even have intended to cause any harm to the person concerned. A Judge but must be free to express his/her mind in the exposition of the case before him/her. Judicial functions cannot be discharged effectively if a Judge were to conform to any particular expression. We find that in this particular case, the observation against the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon/ petitioner is not very unmerited and undeserved; but then before making such a comment, we are of the view that the Superintendent of Police/petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain his version. The records reveal that the petitioner had communicated to the Officer-in-Charge about his obligation to appear before the Court as also of executing the warrant of arrest against the accused person. However, terming the conduct of the petitioner as “lax” and “unconcerned” in this context does not appear to us to be stigmatic or irrelevant or unjustified. We refrain from expunging such remarks against the petitioner from the order sheet only for the reason of not emasculating the order of its content and reach. At the same time, we also caution that a Judge has a co-related duty imposed upon it to show some respect to the Officer or other parties to the Page No.# 5/5 dispute because judicial restraint and discipline is imperative for an orderly administration of justice. All that we can in the circumstances is to direct that such observation against the Officer/petitioner shall not percolate in his ACR in future and would not be read as any adverse remark by a Court in his Service Records. With the afore-noted directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant