An NIA judge from Assam seeks Supreme Court's intervention to remove 'disparaging' comments made by Gauhati High Court.

Last Updated: 22-10-2023 04:30:29pm
An NIA judge from Assam seeks Supreme Court's intervention to remove 'disparaging' comments made by Gauhati High Court.

A judicial officer stationed at one of the special courts established under the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act) in Assam has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, requesting the removal of specific comments made against him in a judgment issued by the Gauhati High Court. The High Court had overturned the judgment authored by the petitioner, leading to his dissatisfaction.

Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha, constituting a bench, have directed the NIA to respond to the plea. The petitioner has expressed his grievance regarding the observations made by the High Court against him while overturning the conviction he had imposed in a case governed by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

In its acquittal of the accused, the High Court had remarked that the NIA had failed to establish the involvement of the accused in a criminal conspiracy. Additionally, it had concluded that the organization known as Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel Garlosa), to which the accused were purportedly affiliated, had not been definitively proven to be a terrorist organization.

The petitioner has objected to the following statements made by the High Court against him:

- Accusing him of harboring a deep-rooted bias in favor of the prosecution.
- Alleging that he had acted with a clear partisan mindset, determined to secure the conviction of the accused/appellant Ahshringdaw Warisa by any means necessary.
- Describing his conclusion as virtually predetermined.
- Accusing him of committing an act of gross judicial impropriety.
- Accusing him of acting in a completely careless manner.
- Accusing him of being a passive observer, devoid of any critical thinking and failing to apply his mind to the actual evidence available on record.

The petitioner argues that these remarks were unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal.

According to the petitioner, these comments have severely damaged his reputation among his colleagues, lawyers, and litigants. They have also disturbed his peace of mind and affected his ability to carry out his judicial duties with composure and confidence. Furthermore, the petitioner believes that these remarks could have adverse consequences for his future career.

Note: The modifiers to consider are "special courts," "National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act)," "Gauhati High Court," "Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)," "Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel Garlosa)," "petitioner-judge," "High Court," "accused/appellant Ahshringdaw Warisa,"

The High Court had issued a directive that a copy of the ruling be presented to the Assam State Judicial Academy "for future references and guidance." This was done to ensure that cases involving serious allegations do not suffer the same fate due to significant errors committed by the trial court.

TAGS: Supreme Court of India Judicial Officer Gauhati High Court NIA

Latest Posts

Calcutta HC extends police shield for slain Congress worker's family amid threats from accused in poll violence.

Calcutta HC extends police shi...

 Madras HC: S.194 CrPC Orders Administrative, Unquestionable Unless Clearly Illegal.

Madras HC: S.194 CrPC Orders ...

 Delhi HC: No summons for non-compliance with Section 31 DV Act maintenance order.

Delhi HC: No summons for non-...

 Bombay HC nullified reassessment on leasehold rights, alleging income escapement.

Bombay HC nullified reassessm...

 2023 Supreme Court Digest: Indian Penal Code.

2023 Supreme Court Digest: In...

 Bail not granted solely on innocence claim; serious charges require stronger reasons: Supreme Court.

Bail not granted solely on in...

 Rajasthan HC queries police on contempt for breaching Supreme Court rules on commercial arrests

Rajasthan HC queries police o...

J&K High Court: Denying benefits to similar employees violates Articles 14 & 16, equality and non-discrimination.

J&K High Court: Denying benefi...