Supreme Court expunges Punjab and Haryana High Court judge's critical comments against it in a recent order
New Delhi, August 7
“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, however, never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional or appellate court,” a five-judge Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.
“Whether individual judges are in agreement with merits or otherwise of an order passed by superior court is besides the point. Every judge is bound by discipline…,” it noted.
“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 Courts, or High Courts or the Supreme Court,” the CJI said, terming the judge’s comments as “scandalous”.
Such observations can cause incalculable harm to the sanctity of judicial process, the CJI added.
“We are of the view that in a situation where the authority of this court is sought to be undermined by gratuitous observations made by a Single Judge of the high court, it’s the plain constitutional function of this court to set right any attempts to dislocate the sanctity of judicial hierarchy in maintenance of judicial discipline,” the Bench said, expunging Justice Sehrawat’s controversial remarks.
The top court, however, chose not to issue notice to Justice Sehrawat despite the top law officers of the government terming his observations as an “aggravated form of contempt”.
“We would have been inclined to issue notice to the Single Judge of the high court…however, doing so would place the judge in a situation of being subject to a judicial adjudication or inquiry by this court – which we are inclined to desist from at this stage,” the Bench said.
“Though there is merit in the submissions of the learned Attorney General for India and Solicitor General of India, we are inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing any further course of action based on the observations of the learned Single Judge (Justice Sehrawat),” it said.
It also took note of the fact that a Division Bench led by Chief Justice of the high court has already stayed Justice Sehrawat’s July 17 order.
“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,” said the Bench which had on Tuesday taken suo motu cognisance of Justice Sehrawat’s comments made in his July 17 order.
“Such observations tend to bring the entire judicial machinery into disrepute. This affects not only the dignity of this Court but of the high courts as well,” said the Bench which also included Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
The top court said greater caution was expected from Justice Sehrawat in future in dealing with orders of the Supreme Court and the high court Division Bench.
The Special Bench said neither the Supreme Court nor high courts were supreme and that in fact the Constitution of India was supreme.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described Justice Sehrawat’s comments as “unwarranted”.
As Mehta pointed out that a video clip of Justice Sehrawat’s comments against the Supreme Court and the high court’s Division Bench was under circulation, the CJI said judges should exercise “due restraint and responsibility” in the age of widespread reporting and live streaming of court proceedings.
Mehta said the video showed Justice Sehrawat calling a Division Bench order to be “rubbish order” and declaring an order of the Supreme Court to be non-est. It was a case of judicial indiscipline and an aggravated form of contempt of court.
In his July 17 order, Justice Sehrawat had commented that the Supreme Court had the tendency to presume it’s more “Supreme” than it actually was and to presume a High Court to be less ‘High’ than it constitutionally was.
He had sought to emphasise that high courts were not subordinate to the Supreme Court and there was no scope for the latter to issue sundry directions to the former regarding specific proceedings pending in a high court.
