5497/2024 Const. P. Muhammad Naseer Rais (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
5497/2024 Const. P. Muhammad Naseer Rais (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Order Date: 21-NOV-24
Principally, Courts should avoid pejorative remarks against non-parties and unjust criticism of parties, vilifying them should also be avoided. Judges can criticize relevant matters and witnesses but should avoid criticizing those in official positions without valid justification that is subject to jurisdiction. A presiding officer of the Court must give a person the opportunity to explain condemnatory facts before criticizing him/her. This is especially important for public servants, who should be given a chance to defend themselves before being criticized. Criticizing someone without giving them a chance to respond is unfair and may be considered outside the judge's jurisdiction. Judges must be independent, but also fair and restrained. They should only criticize people if they have a chance to defend themselves if there is evidence to support the criticism, and if it is necessary for the case. Judicial pronouncements should be sober, moderate, and reserved. On the aforesaid proposition, we are guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC,(PLD 2019 SC 719) and Aijaz Ahmed v. State. (PLD 2021 SC 752).