'Unwarranted' and 'scandalous': SC expunges Punjab and Haryana HC judge's remarks against apex court

The bench, referred to 'judicial discipline' and said it expected greater caution to be exercised in future while dealing with orders of higher courts.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expunged observations made by a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the top court, saying it was bound to intervene into the matter as per its constitutional duty since the remarks tend to undermine its authority.

The top court said the observations can cause impalpable harm to the judicial process as it expected certain circumspection would be exercised in the future.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy expunged the observations describing those as "absolutely unwarranted" and "scandalous", bordering on the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

"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," the bench said.

The court took suo motu cognisance of the remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an order on July 17.

The judge had disapproved the Supreme Court's approach for "presuming itself to be more supreme than it actually is" and the HC to be lesser "high than it constitutionally is".

On Tuesday, the apex court registered a suo motu case as 'In Re : Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Order Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues'.

Taking up the matter, the bench of five senior-most judges of the apex court said the observations with regard to the Supreme Court of India 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 bench said.

"In a situation where the authority of this court is undermined, it is our duty to maintain the sanctity of judicial hierarchy. We therefore expunge the remarks made by Justice Sherawat and hope that caution would be exercised," the bench added.

The bench explained 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 bench said.

After hearing Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the bench said that though the observations bordered on contempt, it was inclined to exercise a degree of restraint.

The court also noted that a division bench of the high court had already taken suo motu notice of the judge's order and stayed.

"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," the bench said.

The court also noted that a video clip of the proceedings of the single judge was already in circulation.

Venkataramani said that there was "some transgression, which was unwarranted" on the part of the high court judge.

Mehta submitted that the video clip made a case for "aggravated contempt" as the conduct was not only against judicial propriety and judicial discipline but was also contemptuous.

The bench said judges work in a hierarchical situation and discipline has to be maintained and they are not to be aggrieved by the orders passed by the higher courts.

"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," the bench said in its order.