Supreme Court

‘Unwarranted’ and ‘Scandalous’: SC Expunges HC Judge’s Remarks against Apex Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 7) expunged the “scandalous” and “unwarranted” observations made by a single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the apex court in a contempt case.

A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, decided not to initiate proceedings against Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge Rajbir Sehrawat for his critical remarks.

“We are of the view that the gratuitous observations by the single judge was absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted. Compliance with Supreme Court direction is not a matter of choice but a matter of binding legal system which overlooks the process of judicial adjudication in the country,” the bench remarked.

The bench, which also included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, emphasized “judicial discipline” and called for greater caution when dealing with orders from higher courts. They asserted that neither the apex court nor high courts hold ultimate supremacy, which actually resides in the Constitution of India.

The bench, which had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter, expressed its disappointment with the high court judge’s observations. It noted that the high court’s order contained “unnecessary” comments on various issues. It highlighted that judges should not be aggrieved by the orders of higher courts and must maintain judicial discipline.

Justice Sehrawat had criticized an apex court order that stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the high court. In his order dated July 17, he remarked, “Seen at a psychological plane, this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors: firstly, a tendency to avoid owning responsibility for the consequences that such an order is likely to produce, under the pretense that a stay of contempt proceedings does not adversely affect anybody; and secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more ‘Supreme’ than it actually is, and to presume a High Court to be less ‘High’ than it constitutionally is.”

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Defamation Case: “Raut Didn’t Take Care & Caution, Caused Complainant Agony”- Mumbai Court

A Mumbai court has convicted Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut in a defamation case…

8 hours ago

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Tytler Case: Delhi Court Records Statement Of Lakhvinder Kaur

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday recorded the emotional testimony of Lakhvinder Kaur, widow of…

8 hours ago

Satyendar Jain Says Probe In Money Laundering Case Incomplete, Seeks Default Bail In Delhi HC

Former minister Satyendar Jain, currently in jail, urged the Delhi High Court on Thursday to…

8 hours ago

Tirupati Laddus Row: SC To Hear Pleas Seeking Court-Monitored Probe On Oct 4

The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of petitions on Friday regarding the…

9 hours ago

SC Scraps Caste-Based Discrimination In Prisons, Terms It Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a groundbreaking judgment on Thursday, declaring caste-based discrimination in…

9 hours ago

Mahadev Betting App Case: SC Gives Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman

The Supreme Court on Thursday has granted bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Sunil Dammani, who was…

9 hours ago