SC thinks of itself as more 'supreme' than it really is, says Punjab HC judge'; top court expunges remark

Justice Sehrawat had to adjourn a contempt proceeding initiated by him to be in accordance with the Supreme Court's stay.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expunged the contentious remarks but desisted from initiating the contempt proceedings against Punjab High Court judge. It, however, cautioned the judge, reminding him that compliance with SC orders isn't a matter of choice but a matter of judicial discipline.

The top court had taken  cognisance of the "judicial indiscipline" of Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Rajbir Sehrawat who criticised the top court for staying proceedings in a matter before his bench.

The top court initiated a suo motu case against Sehrawat.  The matter will be heard by a five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy on Wednesday.

The case, titled “In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court Dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues,” was registered following the high court order on July 17. In that order, a single bench led by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat made several critical remarks about the Supreme 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” and  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.

Sehrawat had to adjourn a contempt proceeding initiated by him to be in accordance with the Supreme Court's stay.

The HC judge had said, "But this (adjourning a case because of SC order) may not be always possible for an HC to follow such a course in view of particular facts and circumstances embedded in a particular case or because of involvement of some statutory provisions. That would be an unfortunate situation, which would better be avoided."

Sehrawat  had cited provisions of an Act and said that even an appeal does not lie before the top court against an order passed by a Single Bench, adding that it rather lies before the HC's division bench.

Sehrawat had also called the apex court's stay order to be "in the nature of controlling roster of High Courts in hearing of criminal cases".

"SC may have power to permit a special appeal by a 'party' to contempt proceedings before HC, against certain types of orders of contempt court under ceratin circumstances, however, in the present case neither there are any such circumstances, nor has any special appeal been filed by the respondents against any such order of the contempt court," Sehrawat had said.

According to  Sehrawat, the top court itself had clarified multiple times that the High Court is not "subordinate" to it. The HC judge noted that the relation between the HC and SC was not the same as the relation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the HC.

(With inputs from agencies)