Recently, a sitting judge of the Gauhati High Court filing a petition with the Supreme Court to have derogatory comments made against him removed. The Supreme Court subsequently acted upon this petition by expunging the offensive remarks. Remarkably, these comments had originated from the High Court bench during proceedings related to a terrorism case in which the judge in question had rendered a verdict in his capacity as a special judge of the NIA court.

The bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha has clearly said that the remaining decisions of the High Court will remain in force. The bench said, “We are of the opinion that the adverse observations against the petitioner in paragraphs 130, 190,191, 192, 193,194 and 233 and any other relevant part of the order shall be deemed to be void and shall not in any way be construed against the petitioner.

"On the basis of the above observations, the order has been vacated. If similar cases arise later, it will be considered on its merits," the bench said. The top court had earlier issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and allowed the case to be listed without disclosing the identity of the petitioner.

In his petition, the judge sought deletion of some of the derogatory remarks made against him in the August 11 High Court judgment. The high court had acquitted several people who were earlier convicted by the trial court for alleged offenses under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The judge said that on May 22, 2017, in his capacity as the special judge of Guwahati NIA in Assam, he had delivered the verdict in the special NIA case. During that time the accused persons were convicted for various offenses under the IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Arms Act, 1959.

The judge said he had awarded different sentences to the 13 convicted people. Subsequently, the convicted persons approached the High Court challenging the conviction order and the HC delivered its verdict on August 11. The judge further said, "The comments have deeply hurt the reputation of the petitioner before his colleagues, lawyers and litigants and have caused him mental distress. These comments may also have an adverse effect on the career of the petitioner in future."

The judge said, “There is only a thin line between criticism of a judge and criticism of a judgment. It is often said that a judge who has not committed any mistake.

He said that in such a complex and big case, while appreciating the evidence, the trial court has to have an honest understanding of the law and the evidence. He said, "It is submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had assumed the role of NIA judge on January 9, 2017 and at that time, the entire trial including presentation of prosecution evidence, investigation of the accused was in its own right." The petitioner's role was limited to presiding over the arguments."