Skip to main content

Citations about Judges Behaviour and Conduct


Judicial Ethics and Conduct of Judicial Officers

I.) Important observations in K.P.Singh vs. High Court of H.P. &

ors. in LPA No. 163 of 2009, decided on 21.4.2011, by Division

Bench of Hon’ble H.P. High Court, comprising of:

 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice and

 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.

Per Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.

 “Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is moral

uprightness; honesty. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence,

trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude,

uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency,

honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability,

genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short it depicts sterling character

with firm adherence to a code of moral values. ‘Judiciary is an integrity

institution’. Therefore, Judicial Officers should possess the sterling

quality of integrity. Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline apart

from others as reminded by the Apex Court in Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti

Basu, (2005)1 SCC 201. To quote:

“ Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others.

It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple

of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a

catastrophe in the judicial-delivery system resulting in the failure of

public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that

woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.”

 Under the Bar Council of India Rules, an advocate shall, at

all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of

the court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman,

bearing in mind that what may be lawful and a moral for a person who is

not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his nonprofessional capacity may still be improper for an advocate.

 These attributes apply with equal force, nay, with stronger

vigor to Judicial Officers. In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 2 SCC 72, Judges have been

described as ‘hermits’, further reminding that, “they have to live and

behave like hermits, who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it

through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat”. In Tarak

Singh’s case (supra), having regard to the plain truth that the judiciary is

also manned by human beings and yet in view of their privileged position,

it was cautioned as follows:

“There is nothing wrong in a Judge having an ambition to achieve

something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to cause a

compromise with his divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it.

Because, if a Judge is too ambitious to achieve something

materially, he becomes timid. When he becomes timid there will be

a tendency to make a compromise between his divine duty and his

personal interest. There will be a conflict between interest and duty.

 In High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Uday

Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 129, in the matter of maintenance of discipline, the

Apex Court stated as follows:

………..“Maintenance of discipline in the judicial service is a

paramount matter. Acceptability of the judgment depends upon the

credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the

officer. The confidence of the litigating public gets affected or

shaken by lack of integrity and character of Judicial Officer.”……

 In Daya Shankar vs. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3

SCC 1, the Supreme Court set the following standard:

“Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and

another outside the court. They must have only one standard of

rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely

unworthy of the office they occupy.”

 In High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S.

Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416, in more emphatic words, it was stated that

dishonesty is the stark antithesis of judicial probity, and

…….“ A dishonest judicial personage is an oxymoron”………….

 Having regard to certain sporadic instances of lack of

probity and integrity among some of the personnel who man this high

office, it is high time that specific standards are set with regard to value

system to be adopted and followed by the members serving in the temple

of justice. No doubt, they are more self imposed than imposed. While

dispensing justice, the messenger is also important as the message itself.

A judge is judged not only by the quality of his judgments, but also by the

quality and purity of his character and the measurable standard of that

character is impeccable integrity reflected transparently in his personal

life as well. One who corrects corruption should be incorruptible. That is

the high standard, the public has set in such high offices of institutional

integrity. Therefore, any departure from the pristine codes and values of

discipline and disciplined conduct on the part of the judicial officers will

have to be viewed very seriously lest the very foundation of the system

would be shaken and, if so, that will be the death knell of


 ……..Honesty and integrity are the hallmarks of judicial probity.

Dishonesty and lack of integrity are hence the basic elements of

misconduct as far as a Judicial Officer is concerned……

 ……….We may end up this epilogue quoting from the decision of

the Supreme Court regarding the role of the High Court in such situations,

reported in High Court of Judicature Vrs. Shashikant Patel (supra):

“ Dishonesty is the stark antithesis of judicial probity. Any instance

of a High Court condoning or compromising with a dishonest deed

of one of its officers would only be contributing to erosion of the

judicial foundation. Every hour we must remind ourselves that the

judiciary floats only over the confidence of the people in its

probity. Such confidence is the foundation on which the pillars of

the judiciary are built.”

II.) Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. Pandey Gajendra

Prasad, 2012 STPL(Web) 305 SC

 “ There is no gainsaying that while it is imperative for the High

Court to protect honest and upright judicial officers against motivated and

concocted allegations, it is equally necessary for the High Court not to

ignore or condone any dishonest deed on the part of any judicial officer.

It needs little emphasis that the subordinate judiciary is the kingpin in the

hierarchical system of administration of justice. It is the trial judge, who

comes in contact with the litigant during the day to day proceedings in the

court and, therefore, a heavy responsibility lies on him to build a solemn

unpolluted atmosphere in the dispensation of justice which is an essential

and inevitable feature in a civilized democratic society. In High Court of

Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416,

highlighting a marked and significant difference between a judicial

service and other services, speaking for a bench of three Judges, K.T.

Thomas, J. observed as follows:

“23. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State

and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the

other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the

Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power.

They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility.

If a judicial officer “tips the scales of justice its rippling effect

would be disastrous and deleterious”. A dishonest judicial

personage is an oxymoron.”


 In Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRs. vs.

Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1, reiterating the

principle laid down in Shashikant S. Patil & Anr. (supra), this Court

observed as follows:

“In case where the Full Court of the High Court recommends

compulsory retirement of an officer, the High Court on the judicial

side has to exercise great caution and circumspection in setting

aside that order because it is a complement of all the Judges of the

High Court who go into the question and it is possible that in all

cases evidence would not be forthcoming about integrity

doubtful of a judicial officer.”

It was further observed that:

“If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity

of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that

opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a

constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the

High Court, any [pic] judicial review thereon should be made only

with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly

to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions.

When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that

compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest, the

writ court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would

not interfere with the order.” 


Popular posts from this blog

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID


Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 2. Court No. 2 3. Court No. 3 4. Court No. 4 5. Court No. 5 6. Court No. 6 7. Court No. 7 8. Court No. 8 9. Court No. 9          9A Court no.10   10. Court No. 11 11. Court No. 12 12. Court No. 13 13. Court No. 14

MP Police Directory DGP Mobile Number Sudhir Saxena

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY I D S N B R A N C H N A M E D E S I G N A I O N S T D  C O D E O F F I C E R E S I F A X 1 F A X 2 M O B I L E CUG E  M A I L A D D R E S S 1 1 D G P  O F F I C E S u r e n d r a  S i n h D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 4 3 3 3 6 2 4 4 3 5 0 1 94 25 01 45 35 70 49 10 00 01 dgp mp @m ppo lic e.g ov .in C-1 0, Swa mi Da ya na nd N ag ar Bh op al 2 2 M i l i n d  K a n s k e r A D G / P S O 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 3 5 2 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 7 2 7 7 7 0 4 9 1 0 0 5 1 0  p s o d g p m p @ m p p o l i c e . g o v . i n  D - 2 / 1 9 , C h a r  I m l i 3 3 P r a d e e p  B h a t i y a J D . ( P  R ) 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 5 2 4 9 1 1 7 2 9 4 2 5 1 7 1 1 1 3 H - 3 9 5 , S a i  A d h a r s h i l a  B a r k h e d a 4 4 D . P .  J u g a d e P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 8 2 6 0 3 6 5 9 3 7049100502 134-A SEC-Sarvadharm Colony, 5 5 N . K .  S h r i v a s t a v a P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 7 5 2 7 0 0 9 4 6 7049155426 G-40/9, S. T.T. Nagar. 6

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O)     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

तोता पालने पर जेल जाओगे , कैद में रखना crime, Parrot Caging

  Crime Under Section 49,51 Of  Wild Life Protection act  तोता पालना तो देश में कॉमन है, ऐसे में उसको पिंजड़े में रखना भी अपराध है? वाइल्डलाइफ एक्ट के मुताबिक,  तोते या किसी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजड़े में कैद करके रखना और उससे किसी भी तरह का लाभ लेने के लिए प्रशिक्षण देना कानूनन अपराध है । भारत में कानून इजाजत नहीं देता कि किसी भी पक्षी को कैद करके रखा जाए। आम तौर पर नागरिक तोतों को पालतू पक्षी मानते हैं लेकिन वन्यजीव अधिनियम 1972 की धारा-4 के तहत इसे या किसी भी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजरे में कैद रखना या पालना गैरकानूनी है। वन्य प्राणी संरक्षण अधिनियम 1972 के अंतर्गत तोता को पालना या पिंजरे में कैद करना दंडनीय अपराध है। यदि किसी व्यक्ति ने तोता पाल रखा हो या उसे पिंजरे में कैद रखा हो तो वन विभाग के नजदीकी कार्यालय में सुपुर्द कर दें। देश भर में तोतों की करीब एक दर्जन प्रजातियां मौजूद हैं और सभी संरक्षित हैं। नियमानुसार तोतों को पालने के लिए वन विभाग की अनुमति जरूरी होती है, लेकिन उन्हें पिंजरे में बंद करने वाले यह अनुमति नहीं लेते हैं। लोग शौकिया तौर पर पिंजरों में रंग-बिरंगे पक्षियों को घरों में

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

Mehandipur Balaji Trustee Mobile Number

  मेहंदीपुर बालाजी ट्रस्टी का मोबाइल नंबर Dausa: Mehandipur Balaji Black Magic Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Psychological Treatment Phone No. Mehandipur Balaji Temple is famous for saving people from Black Magic and Tantrik Kriya. Lord Balaji lives with Bhairav ji and Pretraj Sarkar. People come here for their Solution of Problems and Manokamna. Any Person affected with bad Spirit will Start Rotating his/her Head. Balaji, Bhairavraj and Pretraj Sarkar can help from Black Magic and Evil Spirits. Mehandipur Balaji Savamani Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Arji Phone No. - +91-9782320445 और +91-9351416114 if any Person want to Solve their Problems then they Should Hire or Contact Pujari (Pandit ji) for Puja Path. Hanuman Kavach is also grace of Mehandipur Balaji. Hanuman Kavach is made after various Pooja Path and Tantra Saadhana. Pujari Mobile Number for Black Magic / Bad Spirit and Tantrik Problems  Solutions in Mehandipur Balaji - +91-9929156094

Bombay High Court Rules Are Not Approved By Anybody.....

  Mumbai: The Supreme court rules are to be approved by president of India as per article 145 . When RTI Filed then president office was not having any record. Supreme court replied that they have been informed that SC Rules 2013 is approved by president of India but they don't have president signature copy.  To get the Bombay High Court rules approval status the RTI application was filed at Bombay High Court. Inspite to give direct reply the PIO gave misleading reply about Bombay High court rules approval. It means that they dont have any approval copy of governor or any . Now it is in practice that to curtail  fundamental rights by making rules. The In persons are victim of this monoply of some officers. They make rules  without any authority . Even the chief justice of High Court did not approve these rules. So without any approval these rules have no value . The Party in person rules claimed that it is approved by all the judges but the Ex Registrar General Mangesh Patil was ha