SC expunges Punjab-Haryana HC judge’s remarks against it, warns him
Led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the Supreme Court bench observed that the observations by the High Court judge are a "matter of grave concern"
Taking suo-motu notice of an unusual order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a five-judge Supreme Court bench on Wednesday (August 7) expunged the “unwarranted” remarks criticizing a stay order passed by the apex court.
This followed an order passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the High Court on July 17 where he noted that there was a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to presume that it was “more Supreme”.
A bench comprising Chief justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy said the observations by the High Court judge were “scandalous”, “unwarranted”, and a “matter of grave concern”. The bench said neither the apex court nor high courts were supreme, and supremacy is actually of the Constitution of India.
High Court judge warned
The bench also issued a warning to Justice Sehrawat, saying greater caution is expected from him while dealing with the orders of both the Supreme Court and the High Court division bench as it is a matter of “judicial discipline”.
“Justice 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 apex court said.
“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,” said the court.
Constitutional obligation, not matter of choice
“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,” the apex court said. The bench noted that a division bench of the High Court had already taken suo-motu notice of Justice Sehrawat’s order and stayed it. But as the observations tend to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court, the bench said it was ordering that they be expunged.
The bench, however, refused to initiate proceedings against Justice Sehrawat for his critical observations.
