Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

“Judges Are Never Aggrieved by Higher Courts' Orders," Supreme Court Reprimands High Court Judge, Expunges Remarks

28 August 2024 12:56 PM

By: sayum


Apex Court underscores the importance of judicial discipline and comity, deletes unwarranted observations made by Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has expunged controversial remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, highlighting the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and comity within India's hierarchical judicial system. The apex court emphasized that the remarks were not only unnecessary but also had the potential to undermine the dignity of the judiciary at multiple levels.

The controversy arose from an order dated July 17, 2024, issued by Justice Sehrawat in the context of a contempt proceeding titled Naurty Ram v Devender Singh IAS and Anr. During these proceedings, Justice Sehrawat made several observations concerning the Supreme Court, which were later deemed inappropriate and beyond the necessary scope of the case.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the relationship between the High Courts and the Supreme Court, asserting the importance of judicial discipline. The court underscored that the hierarchical nature of the judicial system is intended to preserve the dignity of all judicial institutions, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts. "Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation," the bench observed, reaffirming that no judge should feel personally aggrieved by the orders of a superior court.

The Supreme Court found the remarks made by Justice Sehrawat to be entirely unwarranted, stressing that they did not contribute to the resolution of the case at hand. The bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, noted that such observations could bring the judicial machinery into disrepute, thereby affecting the dignity of both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court formally expunged the contentious remarks made by Justice Sehrawat, while also expressing a degree of restraint in its response. The court recognized that the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, had already taken suo motu notice of the situation and stayed the operation of the Single Judge’s order.

The bench’s decision to expunge the remarks was driven by the need to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process. The Supreme Court highlighted that judges, while interpreting the law, must exercise caution and restraint, especially in an era where judicial proceedings are closely scrutinized by the public, including through live streaming.

Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked, "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. Judicial discipline and the comity of courts are essential for the functioning of a fair and effective judicial system."

The Supreme Court's decision to expunge the remarks serves as a reminder of the importance of judicial restraint and discipline. This ruling is expected to reinforce the principles of judicial hierarchy and respect among courts, ensuring that the dignity of all judicial institutions is upheld. The case also highlights the delicate balance that judges must maintain in their observations to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

Date of Decision: August 7, 2024

In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues

Latest Legal News