The matter will be heard on Wednesday by a five-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
On July 17, Justice Sehrawat recorded in an order that the Supreme Court had no role in relation to the contempt of court proceedings pertaining to a verdict passed by the High Court.
The judge had remarked that more caution on part of the Supreme Court would probably have been more appropriate.
Justice Sehrawat said the Apex Court had no role in this aspect except in an appeal against the order of a Division Bench of High Court convicting a contemner. As per the provisions of the Act, even an appeal could not be laid before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the single-bench.
The appeal could rather be laid before a Division Bench of the High Court and even there, the powers of the appellate court were well defined, in terms of stage of appeal and in terms of the nature of order which the appellate Court could pass, he added.
Days after the order was passed, in a modification to roster, the High Court Registrar General on orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court, had by way of a notice dated August 5, declared that the contempt matters at the High Court would now be heard by Justice Harkesh Manuja.
Justice Sehrawat in his order had even gone to the extent of calling the Supreme Court’s stay order to be ‘in the nature of controlling roster of the High Courts in hearing of criminal cases’.
The judge further commented on the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court, stating that the top court itself has clarified multiple times that the High Court was not subordinate to the Apex Court administratively.
The relation between a High Court and the Supreme Court was not same as the relation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the High Court, Justice Sehrawat said.
He further remarked that at a psychological plane, this type of order was actuated primarily by two factors. First, a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, was bound to produce, under a pretense that an order of stay of contempt proceedings did not adversely affect anybody.
Secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more ‘Supreme’ than it actually was and to presume a High Court to be lesser ‘High’ than it constitutionally was, he added, while commenting on the Apex Court’s stay order.
Justice Sehrawat further referred to the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for designation of advocates as Senior Advocates
He said even for adopting the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates wherein the procedure of voting in Full Court, as prescribed in the rules; was akin to the one generally prescribed by the State Political Executive for elections of the Chairman and the Presidents of Municipal Bodies.
It was intended to breed servility amongst them by ensuring identification of dissidents, so as to put them under the threat of impending reprisal. All such directions have been followed by the High Courts without any murmur. 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, he added.
Justice Sehrawat also highlighted the ‘drastic’ and ‘damaging’ consequences of such stay orders in contempt proceedings and commented that the same may not have ‘occurred’ to the Supreme Court in its ‘most wide imaginations’.
Referring to the impact of stay in another contempt proceedings related to district court judges, Justice Sehrawat said this court has come across several such cases, but was specifically mentioning one such case.
He claimed that the order qua stay of contempt proceedings passed in SLP No.14945 of 2019 resulted in depriving about 35 percent 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 was finally decided by the Supreme Court, he added.
The judge further asked in this context whether the High Court or the Supreme Court was responsible for the plight of judicial officers.
He said a soul-searching on this aspect by the High Court and the Supreme Court may surprise both of them equally. However, in the humble opinion of this Court, this should sound a note of caution even for the Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order.
Otherwise, if this was the interpretation given by a High Court to such an order, then one could very well imagine the damage which could ensue between private parties, on account of such an order, where the parties were intensely fighting with each other, he added.
Earlier in May 2024, Justice Sehrawat had criticised a Division Bench of the High Court for asking the contempt court to not proceed with a matter before it.
He said the contempt Court did not draw its jurisdiction and powers to consider and decide a contempt petition; from any authorization or concession conferred upon it by any Division Bench. The contempt Court, per se, has that authority and powers as per the Contempt of Courts Act, and more widely, under the provisions of the Constitution of India itself,.
In another matter, Justice Sehrawat recently refused to follow the stay order of a Division Bench and orally called it a ‘rubbish’ order.
The judge reportedly said that such orders of the Division Bench and even the Supreme Court were non-est.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ravinder Malik (Ravi). Advocate Arvind Seth appeared for the respondent.