‘Unwarranted’ remarks by HC judge expunged by SC
Supreme Court expunges remarks by Punjab and Haryana HC judge criticizing its authority, stresses importance of judicial discipline and hierarchy in India.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the expungement of contentious remarks made by justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana high court against the top court, underscoring the importance of judicial discipline and the hierarchical structure of India’s judicial system.
These remarks, which critiqued a stay order previously issued by the Supreme Court, had prompted the apex court to initiate suo motu proceedings amid concerns over the perceived breach of judicial decorum and respect for the constitutional court’s authority.
Justice Sehrawat’s order on July 17 stated that the Supreme Court tends to consider itself as more “Supreme” than it actually is and views high courts as being less “high” than they are constitutionally.
The five-judge bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, expressed its dismay over the observations made by the high court judge, saying it is “pained” at the “completely unwarranted and unnecessary” remarks.
“The Supreme Court is not ‘supreme’ nor is the high court or a munsif court ‘supreme’. The supremacy is of the Constitution. We are all under the Constitution,” commented the bench, adding its role as custodian of the judicial system in the country requires the Supreme Court to order deletion of the judge’s “gratuitous remarks” that bring not only the top court but also the high court into disrepute.
Even as it observed that justice Sehrawat’s comments border on contempt, the bench refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against the judge, saying it would not want the majesty of the high court to be undermined or put the judge of a constitutional court in the dock as a litigant to defend himself.
“Thus, we will expunge the remarks of the judge and express that observations in the order are scandalous. The Supreme Court must also use its powers with great caution and remedy by us should not cause greater judicial harm... at the same time, this tendency of making observations on the orders of the Supreme Court must be eschewed. Every judge has to maintain the discipline of the system,” said the bench.
In its order, the bench stated: “Justice Rajbir 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 the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court emphasised that compliance with its orders is not optional but a “bounden constitutional obligation”. It added that the remarks made by justice Sehrawat were unnecessary for the outcome of the case and were “gratuitous” in nature, noting that such comments could potentially undermine the dignity of the judicial system as a whole.
The bench also made it clear that while parties may be aggrieved by an order, judges should not take issue with decisions made by higher constitutional fora. “Judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum,” the court pointed out, underlining the expectation that judicial officers maintain decorum and respect the judicial hierarchy.
During the proceedings, attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta expressed their concerns regarding the remarks made by justice Sehrawat. SG Mehta pointed out that a video clip from the high court proceedings was circulating, wherein justice Sehrawat allegedly declared an order of the Supreme Court “non-est” and expressed his unwillingness to adhere to a stay order passed by the division bench. Mehta argued that this conduct not only breached judicial propriety but also bordered on contempt.
While the Supreme Court acknowledged the merit in the arguments that the remarks bordered on contempt, it chose to exercise restraint in pursuing further action, opting instead to expunge the contentious observations and issuing a word of caution for the high court judge, whose conduct, it said seemed an “attempt to dislocate the sanctity of judicial hierarchy and maintenance of judicial discipline”.
The bench said it expects more caution on the part of justice Sehrawat with respect to judicial orders issued by the Supreme Court or a larger bench in the high court. “Whether an individual judge is aggrieved by an order is beside the point. Every judge is bound by the discipline that hierarchical discipline envisaged under the judicial system of the country,” it held.
The bench further refrained from directing any judicial inquiry into the incident at this stage but noted its constitutional duty to intervene when such remarks threaten to compromise the integrity of the judiciary.
“We desist from directing any judicial enquiry at this stage but as per our constitutional duty, we were bound to intervene. Thus, the remarks from the order stand expunged. 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,” said the bench while noting that a bench led by high court chief justice Sheel Nagu stayed justice Sehrawat’s order on its own.
In addition to addressing the remarks made in the order, the Supreme Court also highlighted the implications of livestreaming on judicial conduct. Referring to the video clip that was widely shared, the bench underscored the necessity for judges to exercise greater restraint during court proceedings, particularly in an age where public scrutiny is intensified by digital media.
“A video of the judge is doing the rounds where the judge is using gratuitous and unwarranted remarks during the hearing. 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,” the bench maintained.
A suo motu case, titled “In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues,” was registered by the Supreme Court following justice Sehrawat’s order on July 17 in which the judge made several critical remarks about the top court’s decision to stay contempt proceedings initiated by the high court in a case.
According to justice Sehrawat, the Supreme Court thinks of itself as more “Supreme” than it really is, and it thinks of the high courts as less “high” than they truly are in terms of the Constitution. His judgment also sounded a “note of caution” for the Supreme Court, asking it to be more explicit about the potential legal ramifications of any decisions it makes.
He observed: “Seen at a psychological plane this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors, firstly a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, is bound to produce, under a pretense that an order of 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.”
Justice Sehrawat acknowledged that while high courts may follow directions from the Supreme Court, whether out of perceived coercion, due regard, or institutional majesty, the Supreme Court may not always consider the “drastic and damaging consequences” its stay orders on contempt proceedings can produce.