'We Are Pained' : Supreme Court Expunges P&H High Court's Unwarranted Observations Against SC's Stay Order

Taking suo motu notice of an unusual order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 7) expunged the "unwarranted" remarks in the High Court's order criticizing a stay order passed by the Top Court.

The suo motu case was over the order passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the High Court on July 17, where he said that there was a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to presume that it was "more Supreme".

A 5-judge comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, which heard the suo motu case, said that the observations made by the High Court judge are a "matter of grave concern."

The bench 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.

Observations bring entire judicial system into disrepute

In the order, the 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."

Though the bench said that there was merit in the submissions urged by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General that the observations bordered on contempt, the bench said that they are inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing a further cause of action.

The bench noted that a division bench of the High Court has already taken suo motu notice of Justice Sehrawat's order and has stayed it. However, since the observations tend to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court, the bench said that it was ordering that they be expunged.

'We are pained by the observations'

"We are pained by the observations made by the single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The observations are made in regard to an order passed by the Supreme Court," CJI DY Chandrachud said as soon as the proceedings started.

CJI also said that a video clip of the proceedings of the single judge, where he made unnecessary remarks, was in circulation.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said that there was "some transgression, which was unwarranted" on the part of the High Court judge.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, submitted that the video clip was from a hearing which took place before a single judge after he passed the order. SG said that the video clip makes a case for "aggravated contempt". SG said that in the video clip, the judge could be seen saying that he had declared an order of the Supreme Court "non-est" and that he wouldn't follow a stay order passed by the division bench.

SG said that the video showed a conduct which was not only against judicial propriety and judicial discipline but was also contemptuous.

"This tendency of making gratuitous observations on the work of the Supreme Court...we all work in a hierarchical situation. That discipline has to be maintained. Judges are not to be aggrieved by the orders passed by the higher courts," CJI said.

"The observations made in the order are scandalous. We will expunge them. They border on the exercise of contempt jurisdiction," CJI added.

SG urged the Court to also deal with the remarks made in the video, as the clip is getting widely shared. The bench however said that it would prefer to confine the matter to the observations recorded in the order.

"What is mentioned by you SG is not part of the order but it is in the course of proceedings.. we are on what is recorded in written. You are correct that tone and tenor expression could be avoided but we as the Supreme Court has to go by what is recorded in the order," Justice Hrishikesh Roy said.

Judges need to be more restrained in the age of live streaming

In the order which was ultimately passed, the bench also referred to the video clip, and emphasised the need for judges to exercise restraint while conducting proceedings.

The bench observed in the order as follows :

"A video of the judge is doing the rounds where the judge is using gratuitous and unwarranted remarks during the hearing. In the age of live streaming, it is necessary that judges exercise greater restraint during proceedings and the observations made can cause impalpable harm to the judicial process. We expect certain circumspection shall be exercised in the future. We desist from directing any judicial enquiry at this stage but as per our constitutional duty we were bound to intervene. Thus remarks from the order stand expunged. We hope the court would not have to interfere in a similar matter in the future in relation to the same judge or any other judge of this country"

Background

The High Court bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed that the Supreme Court has the tendency to presume that it has more "Supreme" than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser 'High' than it constitutionally. In the order, the High Court sounded a "note of caution" for the Supreme Court "to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order".

The single judge bench of the High Court made these observations in its order dated July 17 with respect to an order passed by a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal on May 3.

Case : In Re : Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Order Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(c) 8/24 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment