Should adverse remarks on trial court judges percolate into a judgement or not turned out to be the bone of contention between Justice S Vimala and Justice S Ramathilagam, who comprised a division bench, while deciding on a trial court judgement awarding death penalty to an accused in the murder of a 4-year-old girl.

Representative Image

Chennai:

Justice S Ramathilagam while concurring with Justice Vimala on acquitting a man, who was sentenced to death by the trial court, has expressed her reservations over the adverse remarks made by Justice S Vimala against the session’s judge’s judgement.

Justice Vimala on observing that this is a case where there is no evidence at all, said, “Capital punishment would evoke an awe and send shock waves only when it is based on truth and evidence and would lose its sanctity and severity when it is perverse and peddled frequently by every trial court for fear of indictment from outside sources.”

“Therefore, the trial judge is called upon to explain as to why adverse remarks should not be ordered to be entered into the service records, recording that the quality of judgement is poor,” she added.

But Justice Ramathilagam objecting to the finding that there was no evidence at all to implicate the accused, said “Giving warning to the sessions judge and registering adverse remarks in the service register, all this can be done separately by giving a chance to judge and to explain his stand regarding the judgement given by him.”

“Mentioning all these in a judgement copy becomes a document which may give mental agony to the judge, which will affect his future, who is holding the highest post in his district and member of our forum. Further, we are giving a chance for the public to comment on the trial court judge also. So it need not be part of the judgement copy,” Justice Ramathilagam added.

Further, citing Supreme Court expunging adverse remarks even if the order impugned was wrong, Justice Ramathilgam sought the adverse remarks made against the trial judge in the judgement be expunged.

She also noted, “When we reason out why we consider the factors which are against the accused we have the responsibility to reason out why we discard factors favourable to the accused. Only then the judgement becomes a full-fledged unbiased absolute judgement.”