2014II AD (S.C.) 477, AIR2014SC1220, 2014(1)CDR212(SC), JT2014(2)SC417, 2014(1)RCR(Civil)974, 2014(1)SCALE742, 2014(1)SCT759(SC)

Court revealed that  no hesitation in holding that disparaging remarks, as recorded by the learned single Judge, are not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an integral part and further that could not have been done when the appellant was not a party before the court and also he was never afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct, and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench on the foundation that it has not caused any prejudice and he can fully defend himself when a subsequent litigation is instituted, are legally unacceptable. Accordingly, we expunge the extracted remarks hereinbefore and also any remarks which have 24 (2007) 3 SCC 587 Page 22 22 been made that are likely to affect the reputation of the appellant. Since, the appeal is confined only to expunging of adverse remarks, the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Constitution of India, 1952