Supreme Court of India
IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES versus
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 594
- Decided
- 7 August 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
Gratuitous observations by a High Court judge that disparage Supreme Court orders undermine judicial authority and must be expunged, with a cautionary directive for future restraint.
Summary
The Supreme Court suo motu took up an order dated 17 July 2024 issued by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which the judge made gratuitous observations about previous Supreme Court orders while hearing a contempt proceeding. The Court examined whether such remarks undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and whether they should be expunged. Relying on the hierarchical nature of the judiciary and the constitutional duty to comply with Supreme Court orders, the Court held that the observations were unnecessary, brought the judicial system into disrepute, and needed to be removed. It also considered whether a notice to the High Court judge was required, concluding that issuing a notice would itself create an unwarranted adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court expunged the observations, cautioned future judicial conduct, and disposed of the suo motu proceedings without further action against the judge.
Issues considered
- Whether gratuitous observations by a High Court judge about Supreme Court orders undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and merit expungement.
- Whether the Supreme Court can suo motu intervene and expunge such observations without issuing a notice to the concerned judge.
- Whether compliance with Supreme Court orders constitutes a bounden constitutional obligation that imposes discipline on lower courts.
- Whether expungement of the observations is an adequate remedy to preserve judicial dignity.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
Contempt of CourtContempt ProceedingJudicial DisciplineHierarchical NatureGratuitous ObservationBounden Constitutional ObligationSuo Motu NoticeJudicial AuthorityAccess to JusticeSanctity of Judicial Process
Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 949 : 2024 INSC 594
In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues
(Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 8 of 2024)
07 August 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, Sanjiv Khanna,
B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether gratuitous observations passed by a Judge of a High Court
regarding previous orders of the Supreme Court, undermine the
authority of the Supreme Court and should therefore be expunged?
Headnotes†
Suo moto proceedings initiated by Supreme Court –
Observations made in an order by Judge of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana on the Supreme Court found to be
a matter of grave concern – Totally unnecessary for the
ultimate order passed – Gratuitous observations on previous
orders passed by the Supreme Court or for that matter in the
course of the same proceedings absolutely unwarranted –
Observations to be expunged from the order – Greater caution
to be exercised in the future while dealing with orders of the
Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of the High Court:
Held: 1. In an order dated 17.01.2024, a Judge of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana made certain observations regarding the
Supreme Court of India – These observations were found to be a
matter of grave concern and totally unnecessary for the ultimate
order passed – Held that such observations tend to bring the
entire judicial machinery into disrepute, and affects not only the
dignity of the Supreme Court, but of the High Courts as well –
Necessity of judicial discipline and respect for the hierarchical
structure of the judiciary underscored – Intended to preserve the
dignity of all institutions, whether at the level of District, High Court
or Supreme Court. [Paras 4 and 6]
2. Compliance with orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a
matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation,
given the structure of the Indian legal system and the authority of
* Author
950 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Supreme Court which heads the process of judicial adjudication
of the country. [Para 4]
3. Plain function of the Supreme Court to set right any attempt
to dislocate the sanctity of judicial authority and maintenance
of judicial discipline – Observations made by Judge in order
dated 17.07.2024 expunged – Greater caution expected to be
exercised in the future while dealing with orders of the Supreme
Court and of the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 8]
4. Whether individual judges are in agreement with the merits
or otherwise of an order passed by a superior court is beside
the point – Every Judge is bound by the discipline which the
hierarchical nature of the judicial system imposes within the
system – No Judge is personally affected by the orders passed
either by the Division Bench of the High Court or, as the case may
be, by the Supreme Court. [Para 8]
5. In an age where there is widespread reporting of every Court
proceeding, particularly in the context of live streaming which
is intended to provide access to justice to citizens, it is all the
more necessary that Judges should exercise due restraint and
responsibility in the observations which are made in the course
of proceedings sanctity of judicial process can be caused
incalculable harm. [Para 9]
Notice not issued to Judge as it would put him in a situation of being
subject to a judicial adjudication or inquiry by this Court. [Para 10]
Case Law Cited
Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 5
SCC 1 – followed.
List of Keywords
Contempt of Court; Contempt Proceeding; Judicial Discipline;
Hierarchical Nature; Gratuitous Observation; Bounden Constitutional
Obligation; Suo Motu Notice; Judicial Authority; Access to Justice;
Sanctity of Judicial Process.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 8 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 951
In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion.
R. Venkataramani, Attorney General, Tushar Mehta, SG, Lokesh
Sinhal, Sr. AAG, Kanu Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. The Court has taken up these proceedings suo motu in the context
of an order dated 17 July 2024 passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat,
Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while entertaining
a contempt proceeding titled Naurty Ram v Devender Singh IAS
and Anr.1
2. The underlying facts which gave rise to the contempt proceeding
do not need to engage the attention of this Court. However, while
dealing with the contempt proceedings, Justice Sehrawat has
made observations in regard to the Supreme Court of India. Those
observations are a matter of grave concern. Since the order forms
part of the public record of the High Court, it is unnecessary for this
Court to extract those observations, particularly, given the course of
action which this Court proposes to adopt.
3. The principles governing the comity between the High Courts, on
one hand, and the Supreme Court as the apex judicial institution
of the country, on the other, are dealt with in numerous decisions
of this Court. We may only reiterate the principles which have
been laid down in the decision of this Court in Tirupati Balaji
Developers (P) Ltd v State of Bihar.2
4. 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, High Court or Supreme Court. The observations
in the order of the Single Judge dated 17 July 2024 were totally
unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous
1 COCP-87-2022 (O&M)
2 (2004) 5 SCC 1
952 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
observations in regard to previous orders passed by the Supreme
Court or for that matter in the course of the same proceedings are
absolutely unwarranted. Compliance with the orders passed by the
Supreme Court is not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden
constitutional obligation, bearing in mind the structure of the Indian
legal system and the authority of the Supreme Court which heads the
process of judicial adjudication of the country. In passing its orders,
including orders of the nature that gave rise to the observations of
the Single Judge, this Court discharges its plain duty. Parties may
be aggrieved by an order. Judges are never aggrieved by an order
which is passed by a higher constitutional or appellate forum.
5. The Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General, while
dilating on the background of the case which led to the passing of
the order dated 17 July 2024, have submitted that the order of the
Single Judge has affected the dignity not only of this Court, but of
the High Court as well.
6. This Court is constrained to take suo motu notice of the contents of
the order dated 17 July 2024 passed by the Single Judge in view
of the fact that 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. We are accordingly of the view
that such observations were wholly unnecessary for the conduct of
the judicial proceedings before the High Court and ought to have
been eschewed. Though there is a merit in the submission which
has been urged by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General,
we are inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing a further
course of action based on the observations of the Single Judge.
7. The Court is apprised of the fact that the Division Bench of the
High Court presided over by the Chief Justice has taken suo motu
notice3 of the observations made by the Single Judge and stayed
the operation of the order of the Single Judge.
8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid exercise which has been carried out
bona fide by the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, we are
of the view that in a situation where the authority of this Court is
3 CWP-19068-2024 (O&M) dated 7 August 2024
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 953
In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues
undermined by gratuitous observations made by the Single Judge, it
is the plain function of this Court to set right any attempt to dislocate
the sanctity of judicial authority and maintenance of judicial discipline.
We accordingly expunge the observations which have been made
by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the order dated 17 July 2024 and
expect that greater caution should be exercised in the future while
dealing with orders of the Supreme Court and, for that matter, the
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Whether
individual judges are in agreement with the merits or otherwise of an
order passed by a superior court is besides the point. Every Judge
is bound by the discipline which the hierarchical nature of the judicial
system imposes within the system. No Judge is personally affected
by the orders passed either by the Division Bench of the High Court
or, as the case may be, by the Supreme Court.
9. The order dated 17 July 2024 is compounded by a video which
has been circulating indicating random, gratuitous and unwarranted
remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat during the course of the
hearing. In an age where there is widespread reporting of every
proceeding which takes place in the Court, particularly in the context
of live streaming which is intended to provide access to justice to
citizens, it is all the more necessary that Judges should exercise
due restraint and responsibility in the observations which are made
in the course of proceedings. Observations of the nature which have
proliferated in the video of the proceedings of the Single Judge can
cause incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process. We
hope and trust that circumspection shall be exercised in the future.
10. We are not inclined to issue notice to the Single Judge of the High
Court whose observations form the subject matter of the order
dated 17 July 2024. 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 doing, at this stage. However,
this Court in the exercise of its affirmative obligations as the custodian
of the adjudicatory process would be failing in its duty if it were not
to intervene by expunging the remarks which were made in the order
dated 17 July 2024. The observations in the order dated 17 July 2024
are accordingly expunged with an expression of caution. We hope
that it would not be necessary for this Court to intervene any such
954 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
matter in the future either in relation to the same Judge or any other
Judge in the country.
10. The present proceedings are accordingly disposed of.
Result of the case: Proceedings Disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Contempt of Court"Sign in to search