The Supreme Court on Wednesday expunged3 the ‘scandulous’ remarks made by a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge in his July 17 order against the Apex Court, while noting that it was restraining itself from issuing contempt notice to the High Court judge.
Taking up a suo motu case against Punjab & Haryana High Court judge, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, the five-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted that the observations made in the order were scandalous and a matter of ‘grave concern,’ bordering on the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
The top court of the country further issued an oral warning to Justice Sehrawat, saying that greater caution was expected from him in future, while dealing with the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court Division Bench.
The Bench observed that judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the judicial system was intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions, whether at the level of a District Court, a High Court, or the Supreme Court.
Gratuitous observations made by Justice Sehrawat with regard to the previous orders passed by the Supreme Court were absolutely unwarranted. Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court was not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation. Parties may be aggrieved by an order, but Judges were never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum, noted the Apex Court.
It said such remarks tend to bring the entire judicial machinery into disrepute. This affected not only the dignity of this Court, but also the High Court.
Though there was merit in the submissions made by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General that the observations bordered on contempt, the Bench said that it was inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing a further cause of action.
The Apex Court 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 ordered that the same may be expunged.
The top court of the country said it was pained by the observations made by the single-judge Bench in connection with an order passed by the Supreme Court.
It further said that a video clip of the proceedings of the single judge, where he made unnecessary remarks, was in circulation.
Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that there was some ‘transgression,’ which was unwarranted on part of the High Court judge.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the video clip was from a hearing, which took place before a single-judge Bench, after he passed the order.
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 would not follow a stay order passed by the Division Bench. This called for a case for “aggravated contempt,” added SG Mehta.
He said the video showed a conduct, which was not only against judicial propriety and judicial discipline, but was also contemptuous.
The SG urged the Apex Court to also deal with the remarks made in the video, as the clip was getting widely shared. However, the Bench said that it would prefer to confine the matter to the observations recorded in the order.
Noting that the tone and tenor expression could have been avoided by Justice Sehrawat, the Supreme Court said it would go by what was recorded in the order.
Referring to the video clip, the order passed by the Apex Court emphasised the need for judges to exercise restraint while conducting proceedings.
It said in the age of live streaming, it was necessary that judges exercised greater restraint during proceedings. The observations made by them could cause impalpable harm to the judicial process. Certain circumspection should be exercised in the future, said the Bench.
The Apex Court further said that it was desisting from directing any judicial enquiry at this stage but as per its constitutional duty, it was bound to intervene. Thus, the remarks from the order stand expunged.
The Bench said it hoped that this Court would not have to interfere in a similar matter in the future in relation to the same judge or any other judge of the country.
On August 6, the Supreme Court had initiated a suo motu case against Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat for criticising the Apex Court, which ordered a stay on proceedings in a matter pending before his Bench.
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.