Supreme Court Presumes To Be More 'Supreme' : P&H High Court Criticises SC For Staying Contempt Proceedings

Update on August 7: Supreme Court Expunges P&H High Court's Unwarranted Observations Against SC's Stay Order 

In an unusual order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has criticised the Supreme Court for staying the contempt proceeding of the High Court, observing that "there is no scope for sundry direction being issued by the Supreme Court to a High Court, regarding certain proceeding pending before a High Court."

In the present case, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the contempt proceeding, not while hearing an appeal against the order initiating contempt proceedings but while hearing an appeal against the order based on which the contempt proceeding was initiated.

A bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed, "Seen at a psychological plane this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors, firstly a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, is bound to produce, under a pretense that an order of stay of contempt proceedings does not adversely affect anybody."

Secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more 'Supreme' than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser 'High' than it constitutionally, the judge added.

The Court highlighted that the Apex Court has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court.

"Therefore, the relation between High Court and the Supreme Court is not the same as is the elation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) within its jurisdiction and the High Court. In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary Court of unconditional appeal, unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court in specified matters," said Justice Sehrawat.

The High Court further said that, the High Courts may still follow any type of directions coming from the Supreme Court, sometimes out of perceived coercion, sometimes out of due regard for such order, and at some other times for the sake of institutional majesty.

"However, how much drastic and damaging consequences such an order of stay of contempt proceedings can produce, may not have occurred to the Supreme Court in its most wide imaginations," the Court added.

The High Court cited an example to demonstrate the "detrimental consequences" that an order staying contempt proceedings can produce. It referred to the order passed in a Special Leave Petition (SLP No.14945 of 2019) staying contempt proceedings. This stay order, the High Court said, resulted in depriving about 35% strength of Punjab and Haryana Superior Judiciary of their Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale for the past several years.

"No doubt, the Supreme Court would never have intended such drastic consequences, however, this has actually happened because the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on administrative side, has interpreted this order as a de facto order staying the final order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on judicial side, and has decided not to grant the above said Scales to the judicial officers till the SLP is finally decided by the Supreme Court," the Court noted.

HC sounds "note of caution" for the Supreme Court

Justice Sehrawat questioned, "who is responsible for this plight of judicial officer manning the Superior Judiciary of State of Punjab and State of Haryana. Is it the High Court or is it the Supreme Court? A soul searching on this aspect by the High Court and the Supreme Court may surprise both of them equally."

"However, this, in humble opinion of this Court should sound a note of caution even for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order", the judge added.

Referring to the present case, the Court observed that, "keeping in view the sanctity of the judicial process, this Court feels to be absolutely bound by the order and hence, the case is adjourned sine die till the aforesaid SLP is decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court."

"But this may not be always possible for a High Court to follow such a course in view of particular facts and circumstances embedded in a particular case or because of involvement of some statutory provisions. That would be an unfortunate situation, which would better be avoided," added the bench.

It is pertinent to note that yesterday evening, the Chief Justice Sheel Nagu modified the roster and transferred Contempt of Court cases from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat to Justice Harkesh Manuja. The above-mentioned order was passed by Justice Sehrawat on July 17.

Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the respondents.