Punjab & Haryana High Court Suo Motu Stays Single Bench Order With Unwarranted Comments Against Supreme Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today, took suo motu cognizance of the comments "lowering the majesty and dignity of Apex Court" made in the order passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat.
In an unusual order, the judge criticised the Supreme Court for staying the contempt proceeding of the High Court, observing that there was a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to presume that it was "more Supreme"
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said, "This Court is conscious of its limited powers under the appeal, but considering the decision of Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs Chunilal Nanda and others, (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein it has been held in categorical terms that where the learned Single Judge passes an order, which is though not appealable before the Division Bench, but while doing so exceeds the power and jurisdiction which the learned Single Judge exercises, an appeal can very well be entertained."
Consequently, the High Court today stayed the order passed by the single judge till the next hearing (August 22) "to prevent any further damage to the reputation and majesty of the rule of law and the Supreme Court and also of this Court."
It is pertinent to note that, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court today expunged the "unwarranted" remarks in the High Court's order.
The Supreme Court also issued a word of warning to the High Court judge, saying that greater caution is expected from him in future while dealing with the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court division bench.
In the order, the five- bench observed :
"Justice Rajbir Sehrawat has made observations in regard to the Supreme Court of India, which are a matter of grave concern...Judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the judicial system is intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions whether at the level of District Court, or High Court or Supreme Court.
"The observations which were made in the order of the single judge were unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous observations in regard to the previous orders passed by the Supreme Court are absolutely unwarranted. Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation. Parties may be aggrieved by an order. Judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum. Such observations tend to bring the entire judicial machinery into disrepute. This affects not only the dignity of this Court but also the High Court."
Title: Court on its own motion