The Supreme Court on Wednesday responded firmly to a challenge to its authority – stressing that compliance with its orders is “not a matter of choice” – and expunged critical remarks made by a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month regarding a land dispute case.
The judge had reacted sharply to a May 3 order staying certain contempt proceedings.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud called the criticism “unnecessary” and said it lowered the dignity of both courts. “A party may be dissatisfied with a decision… but judges can never express dissatisfaction over the order passed by a higher constitutional forum,” the Chief Justice declared.
A five-judge bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy was responding suo moto to the judge's comment, and called it a "matter of grave concern". The bench also warned the judge – Justice Rajbir Sehrawat – who made the remark, saying it expected restraint while commenting on orders passed by the Supreme Court.
"Justice Sehrawat made observations in regard to the Supreme Court of India, which are a matter of grave concern… judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the system is intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions, whether a district or a High Court, or the Supreme Court."
"The observations made… were unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous observations in regard to previous orders passed by Supreme Court are absolutely unwarranted."
The Supreme Court underlined that compliance with its orders is not "a matter of choice but a matter of constitutional obligation". "Parties may be aggrieved by an order… but judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum," the Chief Justice-led bench.
The top court, however, declined to initiate contempt proceedings of its own against the judge, particularly since a Division Bench had acted first and stayed Justice Sehrawat's order.
The court did, though, express hope that judges of other courts would learn from this episode and be cautious while commenting on orders passed by the country's foremost legal forum.
The matter broke after a video of the judge making his observations went viral. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested the video "makes (for) a case of aggravated contempt" against the judge.
