Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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