Scandalous & Unwarranted: Apex Court Expunges Observations Made By Punjab & Haryana HC Judge Against SC

The Supreme Court has expunged the observations made by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Apex Court in a contempt case, terming them were "scandalous" and "unwarranted."

The Court was hearing a suo motu writ petition against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated July 17, criticizing a stay order passed by the Apex Court in contempt of court proceedings. 

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said, "We will expunge the remarks contained in the order of the judge. As the observations that have been made in the order are scandalous, it will have bearing on the contempt jurisdiction by this court."

The Bench said, we, as the Apex Court, should exercise our power with great caution.

During the hearing, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, and Additional Advocate General (AAG), Lokesh Sinhal, appeared. 

At the outset, the CJI said, "We are taking suo moto cognizance of the matter, because we are pained by the observations made by the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana. The observations made to, in regard, with the orders passed by the Supreme Court."

"There is also now a video clip that is being circulated. The orders are part of the public record of the High Court," the CJI said. 

Regarding the video clip, SG Mehta submitted, "I have some facts, that I have gathered from the members of the bar who are connected with the case."

AG Venkataramani submitted, "I have read the entire proceedings, I think this matter deserves the intervention of the Supreme Court. There are many dimensions to what the learned judge should not have done...There is some transgression which is unwarranted. I think the court may take a serious note of that."

SG Mehta informed the Bench that the video clip should be seen in a factual context. He submitted that it makes out a case of "aggravated contempt." The SG also informed the Bench of the background facts of the video clip. He gave a brief background, including the facts of the matter. 

To this, Justice Khanna said, "Are we required to go into the facts? We are not required to go into the facts, as to what appeal is pending..only issue is when there is a stay order passed by the court, being an appellant court...It is not that the High Court is subordinate, but we have an appellant forum system. So that order has to be complied with, but unnecessary observations have been made with regard to so many things."

The SG further submits that in the video clip, the single judge does five things: "1) He says the order of the division bench is rubbish; 2) He refuses to follow that order; 3) He says that you do not know I have already declared one Supreme Court judgment to be non est, 4) He has also declared another division bench order to be non est. 5) He says that the Judges are required to be sent for judicial training."

Mehta submitted that sometimes expressions speak louder than words, and we have all seen the video. He further submitted that the video is in circulation and a common man is watching it. "I find the video to be not just judicial indiscipline. It is contemptuous," the SG contended. 

The CJI told the SG that the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, headed by the Chief Justice, has taken suo moto notice of the order that was passed by the single judge, and that order has been stayed by it (the division bench). 

"We are of the view that we are not really about a particular judge or a particular order, but this tendency of making gratuitous observations of the work of the Supreme Court, all the high courts, all district courts work in a hierarchical judicial system," the CJI said. 

Further, emphasizing that "discipline has to be maintained,"  the CJI remarked, "Judges are not aggrieved by any order that is passed by a superior court. They have to maintain the discipline of the system."

The Court said, "We will not make any observation that will in any way affect the majesty of the High Courts as an institution." However, the Bench said that it will expunge the observations made by the judge in the order. 

Justice Roy said, "The sentences, the kind of tone, tenor, could have been avoided by judge. Words spoken speak louder than words written, but eventually, when we sit in the Supreme Court, we have to go by what is written down in the order." Furthermore, Justice Roy emphasized that the real supremacy is of the Constitution. He said, "Even the Supreme Court is not Supreme, the High Court is not High, it is always the Constitution that is supreme. We are all below the Constitution, and our task is to interpret it as we understand."

Accordingly, the Court expugned the remarks made by the Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In an unusual order dated July 17, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Supreme Court for staying contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court, emphasizing that the Supreme Court should refrain from issuing "sundry directions" to a High Court regarding ongoing proceedings.

The issue arose when the Supreme Court stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, not in response to an appeal against the contempt order itself but in relation to an appeal against the original order that led to the contempt proceedings.

The Single-Judge Bench had expressed concern over the implications of such a stay. He had stated in the order, "Seen at a psychological plane, this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors: firstly, a tendency to avoid owning responsibility for the consequences of such an order, under the pretense that a stay of contempt proceedings does not adversely affect anybody. Secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more 'Supreme' than it actually is, and to presume a High Court to be lesser 'High' than it constitutionally is."

"In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary Court of unconditional appeal, unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court in specified matters. Therefore, there is no scope for sundry direction being issued by the Supreme Court to a High Court, regarding certain proceeding pending before a High Court," the Single-Judge has said. 

Justice Sehrawat had cited a specific example involving Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 14945 of 2019), where a Supreme Court order staying contempt proceedings had resulted in about 35% of the Punjab and Haryana Superior Judiciary being deprived of their Selection Grade and Super Time Scale for several years. The High Court, on its administrative side, interpreted the Supreme Court's stay order as a de facto stay on the final order passed by its Division Bench, leading to this situation.

He had expressed his concern over who should bear responsibility for the plight of judicial officers in Punjab and Haryana. He suggested that both the High Court and the Supreme Court engage in "soul searching" on this issue. "This, in the humble opinion of this Court, should sound a note of caution even for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order," he had remarked.

"Otherwise, if this is the interpretation given by a High Court to such an order, then one can very well imagine the damage which could ensue between private parties, on account of such an order, where the parties are intensely fighting with each other," he had added. 

In a related development, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punajb and Haryana High Court modified the Court roster shortly after the order, transferring contempt of court cases from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat to Justice Harkesh Manuja.

Cause Title: In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Order Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues [SMW (C) No. 8/2024]