MORE BEST BAKERY LITIGATION

Some human rights activists also succeeded in convincing the Indian Supreme Court to delete passages from the official record of the Gujarat High Court decision that "cast aspersions on their credibility and bona fides in helping certain persons to approach this Court for redressal of their grievance." The case is Tessta Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, here. Justice Pasayat writes:

9.Observations should not be made by Court against persons and authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort. Courts are temples of justice and such respect they also deserve because they do not identify themselves with the causes before it or those litigating for such causes. The parties before it and the counsel are considered to be devotees and Pandits who perform the rituals respectively seeking protection of justice; parties directly and counsel on their behalf. There is no need or justification for any unwarranted besmirching of either the parties, or their causes, as a matter of routine.

10. Courts are not expected to play to the gallery . . . . Uncalled for observations on the professional competence or conduct of a counsel, and any person or authority or harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made, unless absolutely required or warranted for deciding the case.

The Court then orders that the offending passages (listed in the opinion) should "stand expunged and deleted from the judgment of the High Court, and consequently must be treated as having never existed or being part of the High Court judgment."

I have no idea how common such rulings are in India, or anywhere else for that matter. I've never heard of the official expunging of judicial rulings. Interesting.