JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Roy, Ld. Counsel, on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant who is a practising advocate has filed this application for expunging the observation appearing in para 12 of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2005 passed by Hon'ble B.K. Sharma, J. in Review Petition Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of 2005 and W.P. (C) Nos. 5416, 5401, 5282 and 5109 of 2005. 2. Attending facts and circumstances which are associated with the matter have been elaborately discussed in the following cases reported in (a) [Registrar (I&E) Gauhati High Court, Gauhati v. Amarjit Borgohain and Ors.) (b) 2007 (2) GLT 682 [Registrar (I & E) Gauhati High Court, Gauhati v. Amarjit Borgohain and Ors.) (d) [Registrar (I & E) Gauhati High Court, Gauhati v. Amarjit Borgohain and Ors.) and (e) 2007 (2) GLT 688 [Registrar (I&E)Gauhati High Court, Gauhali v. Amurjit Borgohain and Ors.). as such, we shall confine ourself only to the facts which are necessary for our consideration. Records reveal that there is an apparent conflict between 2 (two) sets of decisions rendered by two different Ld. Single Judge of this Court, one being orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed in Review Petition Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of 2005 by Hon'ble R.B. Mishra, J. (reported in 2007 (2) GLT 682. In that, it was held that the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by Hon'ble B.K. Sharma, J. transmitting the case records of W.P. (C) Nos. 5416, 5401 and 5282 of 2005 etc. from Principal Seat to Itanagar Bench for listing on 8.8.2005 as illegal and without competency as it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice alone can constitute bench (s) and distribute the business of the High Court both on administrative as well as on the judicial side. 3. Another being the order dated 3.10.2005 passed in Review Petition Nos. 72, 73,74 and 75 of 2005 and W.P.(C) Nos. 5416, 5401, 5282 and 5109 of 2005, by Hon'ble B.K. Sharma, J., holding that the finding recorded in the orders of the aforesaid Review Petitions is contrary to 2 (two) circulars dated 25.11.1991 and 21.4.2001 issued by the High Court Registry as per order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and long standing practice being followed by all the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. In that, the Ld. Single Bench also passed an order for placing the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordships consideration to place the matter pertaining to Review before a Division Bench so as to resolve the issue, on the face of apparent conflict between the 2 (two) said circulars and long standing practice being followed by this Court and the orders passed on Review Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 3.10.2005 passed by the Ld. Single Bench, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side for necessary order and the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass an order on 28.11.2005 for placing the matter before a Division Bench. In the meantime, after considering the matter on its entirety, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass an order on 6.3.2006 for withdrawal of the 4(four) Review Petitions and the order of the Chief Justice is as follows: Order by Hon'ble Chief Justice in Review Pern, No. 72/05 in W.P.(C) No. 5416/05 Review Petn. No. 73/05 in W.P.(C) No. 5401/05 Review Petn. No. 74/05 in W.P.(C) No. 5282/05 Review Petn. No. 75/05 in W.P.(C) No. 5109/05 ORDER Having perused the entire materials available on record, including the orders passed from time to time ultimately culminating in the learned Single Judge's order initiating contempt proceedings against the then Registrar (I & E), I consider it appropriate to direct the Registrar (Judicial) to file appropriate application proposing to withdraw the very review petition for which purpose he shall consult the Standing Counsel for the High Court. Appropriate steps be taken in this regard forthwith. Sd/- Chief Justice 06.03.2006. 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court filed applications for withdrawal of the Review Petition Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of 2005 and the prayer was allowed by an order dated 8.3.2006 passed by this Court (reported in 2007 (2) GLT 688. While allowing withdrawal of the aforesaid Review Petitions, this Court also recalled the orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed in the Review Petitions referred to above and it was further ordered that these orders would not form part of the records of the connected Writ Petitions. While allowing withdrawal of the aforesaid Review Petitions, this Court also recalled the orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed in the Review Petitions referred to above and it was further ordered that these orders would not form part of the records of the connected Writ Petitions. However, no order was passed by the Division Bench either retailing or modifying any part or portion of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2005 passed by Hon'ble B.K. Sharma, J. Hence this Application. 5. Mr. N. Dutta, the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant Advocate was engaged by his client i.e. the Gauhati High Court, to draft the aforesaid Review Petitions and conduct the same with the help of his seniors. Accordingly, the applicant drafted the Review Petitions as instructed by his client, in terms of the Gauhati High Court Rules, questioning the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid order dated 29.7.2005 passed by Hon'ble B.K. Sharma, J. In this exercise, submits by the Ld. Sr. Counsel, nothing illegal whatsoever has been committed by the Applicant leave alone the commission of any Contempt of Court. Thus the observation of Ld. Single Judge appearing at para 12 of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2005, is uncalled for and expunction of the same is required from the records of the Court. The aforesaid para 12 is quoted below: Para 12. In view of the above, I am also of the considered opinion that the aforesaid two Counsel are also liable for Contempt of Court. 6. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that in view of withdrawal of the Review Petitions referred to above and recall of orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed by the Review Court as discussed above,what had been said and done in the Review Petitions would stand wiped out/obliterated from the judicial record of the connected cases. In other words, Review Petitions andorders passed by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J., in the Review Petitions shall be treated as non-est in the eye of law. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that the High Court being a higher Court of records with plenary jurisdiction, have ample power to examine and expunge, if necessary, any disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made against an individual, officer of the subordinate Courts and Counsels etc. from any judgment and order. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that the High Court being a higher Court of records with plenary jurisdiction, have ample power to examine and expunge, if necessary, any disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made against an individual, officer of the subordinate Courts and Counsels etc. from any judgment and order. It is true that a person aggrieved by a disparaging or an objectionable remark made by the Court is not without any remedy as he may approach the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking expunction of objectionable remark which jurisdiction vests with in the High Court by virtue of being a Court of record and also possessing inherent power and this view is settled by the law laid down in 1964 CriLJ 1 (Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar). 7. In [1964] 2 SCR 363 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nairn), the Apex Courtlays down the following: It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. 8. The views expressed in the case of Raghubir Saran and Mohd. Nairn (supra) are reiterated in [1990] 2 SCR 110 (A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta) and (2001) 3 SCC 54 ('K', A Judicial Officer, In Re) and the test laid down in Mohd. Nairn's case is still followed as guiding principles while adjudicating cases relating to expunction of disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Court against individual, officer and Counsel etc. Further, in 2005 CriLJ 3739 (Samya Sett. v. Shambhu Sarkar), the Apex Court held that any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation made by a Ld. Single Judge of a High Court against the Appellant therein should be deleted as not justified if such disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Ld. Further, in 2005 CriLJ 3739 (Samya Sett. v. Shambhu Sarkar), the Apex Court held that any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation made by a Ld. Single Judge of a High Court against the Appellant therein should be deleted as not justified if such disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Ld. Judge of the High Court is not necessary for deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor an integral part of the judgment. 9. In the backdrop of the above discussion, two proposition of law can be boiled down for decision of this Court. Firstly, it is axiomatic about the existence of inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court, as such, a person aggrieved by any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation made by a Court against him can approach the High Court invoking its inherent power and plenary jurisdiction to consider for expunction of the same from the judicial record. Secondly, the consistent policy of the Court in such matter is to exercise restraint from passing any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation against individual, officer, Counsel, etc. unless such disparaging or objectionable remark/observation is absolutely required for deciding the controversy raised before the Court and such disparaging or objectionable remark/observation should also necessarily form an integral part of the judgment and order of the Court. 10. Be that as it may, the offending para 12, as quoted above, which is sought to be expunged in this application relates to and originates from Review petition Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of 2005 which are the basis for the controversy raised in the cases referred to in the foregoing para Nos. 2 and 3 of this order and these Review Petitions have now been withdrawn with the leave of this Court by an order dated 8.3.2006 and orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed in the Review Petitions by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J., have also been recalled by this Court and these facts cannot be lost sight of. 11. 2 and 3 of this order and these Review Petitions have now been withdrawn with the leave of this Court by an order dated 8.3.2006 and orders dated 3.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 passed in the Review Petitions by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J., have also been recalled by this Court and these facts cannot be lost sight of. 11. In view of withdrawal of the Review Petitions and recall of the orders passed therein as discussed above, we find there is no justification for allowing further continuance of the observation appearing in para 12 of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2005 and this Court is also of the opinion that para 12 as mentioned above, is not absolutely required for deciding the controversy raised in the batch of Review Petitions and Writ Petitions before the High Court. Accordingly, in exercise of inherent power and plenary jurisdiction, it is ordered that the aforesaid para 12 be expunged/deleted from the judgment and order dated 3.10.2005. This Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Application allowed