...... 16 SITUATION IN GUJARAT be taken into account in the decision to so appoint. Though the witnesses or the victims do not have any choice in the normal course to have say in the matter of appointment of a Public prosecutor, in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case, to accord such liberties to the complainants party, would be appropriate.” 3.13 The Supreme Court also took a serious view of some objectionable observations and remarks made against the NHRC and certain NGOs in the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat while disposing of the State appeal in the Best Bakery case. It observed:“The High Court appears to have miserably failed to maintain the required judicial balance and sobriety in making unwarranted references to personalities and their legitimate moves before competent courts – the highest court of the nation, despite knowing fully well that it could not deal with such aspects or matters. Irresponsible allegations, suggestions and challenges may be made by parties, though not permissible or pursued defiantly during course of arguments at time with the blessings or veiled support of the Presiding Officers of Court. But, such besmirching tacts, meant as innuendo’s or serve as surrogacy ought not to be made or allowed to be made, to become part of solemn judgments, of at any rate by High Courts, which are created as Court of record as well – decency, decorum and judicial discipline should never be made casualties by adopting such intemperate attitudes of judicial obstinacy. The High Court also made some observations and remarks about persons / constitutional bodies like NHRC who were not before it. We had an occasion to deal with this aspect to certain extent in the appeal relating to SLP (Criminal) Nos. 530-532/2004. The move adopted and manner of references made, in para no. 3 of the judgment except the last limb (sub-para) is not in good taste or decorous. It may be noted that certain reference is made therein or grievances purportedly made before the High Court about the role of NHRC. When we asked Mr. Sushil Kumar who purportedly made the submission before the High Court during the course of hearing, he stated that he had not made any such submission as reflected in the judgment. This is certainly intriguing. Proceedings of the court normally reflect the true state of affairs. Even if it is accepted that any such submission was made, it was not proper or necessary for the High Court to refer to them in the judgment to finally state that no serious note was taken of the submissions. Avoidance of such manoeuvres would have augured well with the judicial discipline. We order the expunging and deletion of the contents of para 3 of the judgment except the last limb of the sub-para therein and it shall be always read to have not formed part of the judgment”. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION