138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

“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