The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

“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

Similar News