State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 [Also, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in A.N. Perera v. D.L.H. Perera, 1982 SCC SL SC 20]; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma, (1968) 1 SCR 813; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169; Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar, (2005) 6 SCC 767.

Appellant is a Practicing Lawyer, before High Court of Uttarakhand, with around 17 years standing as Member of the Bar. Learned Judge did not, before recording adverse comments, give any opportunity to Appellant to put forth his explanation. The remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on professional integrity of Appellant. Such condemnation of Counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard, would be a negation of principles of audi alteram partem. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be missing in offending comments. It is accordingly held, offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to Appellant’s reputation or his work as a Member of the Bar.

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani, [Civil Appeal Nos. 4555-4559 of 2021].