Introduction:

In a recent ruling by the Bombay High Court, criticism was directed towards an Additional Sessions Judge for using inappropriate language while expressing frustration over workload. The case, Criminal Writ Petition [Stamp] No. 12823 of 2024, involved Godrej Projects Development and another versus Zakir Ramzan Qureshi and others. The Additional Sessions Judge’s order, dated April 24, 2024, sparked controversy due to remarks indicating reluctance to grant stay orders, citing being “handicapped” by the heavy caseload. The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued against the unusual order and highlighted the judge’s use of insensitive language.

The High Court, led by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, rebuked the Additional Sessions Judge, emphasizing that such language is unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer. Despite acknowledging the burden of cases on courts, the High Court asserted that valid reasons must be provided in rulings and not expressions of frustration. Consequently, the High Court issued a directive for the speedy resolution of six revision applications within four weeks, stressing the importance of judicial decorum and efficient case management.

Arguments:

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the Additional Sessions Judge’s order was irregular and insensitive, particularly in referring to himself as “handicapped” in handling the caseload. They contended that such remarks reflected poorly on judicial conduct and sought intervention from the High Court for appropriate redressal.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan of the Bombay High Court delivered a stern rebuke to the Additional Sessions Judge for the language used in the order. The High Court acknowledged the heavy caseloads faced by courts but underscored that such frustrations should not be expressed in a manner that undermines the dignity of the judicial process. The court highlighted that it is widely known that almost every court is inundated with cases, but this does not justify the use of inappropriate language in judicial orders, especially in genuine and proper cases.

Justice Chavan directed the Additional Sessions Judge to decide on the six revision applications expeditiously, setting a deadline of four weeks from the date of the High Court’s order. The High Court further mandated that compliance with this directive be reported back to the court by July 22, 2024, when the matter is scheduled for further directions.