New Delhi: Remarking that neither the Supreme Court of India is Supreme, nor the high court, but the Constitution of India is Supreme, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday expunged the remarks of a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, in his July 17 order which said that there was a tendency of the Supreme Court to presume it to be more supreme that it actually is, and termed it unnecessary and gratuitous.
Exercising restrain and not issuing contempt notice to Justice Rajbir Sehrawat: Apex Court
The bench of top five judges of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said even though the remarks of the judge of the high court were scandalous and contemptuous, the judges of the Supreme Court were exercising restrain and not issuing contempt notice to Justice Rajbir Sehrawat.
The five-judge bench in its order on Wednesday said, “We are of the view that such observations were unnecessary and ought to have been eschewed.. thought there is merit in submissions of the Attorney General for India and Solicitor general of India that the observations were contemptuous we exercise restrain.”
We must exercise our power with great caution: Apex Court
The court also observed that we must exercise our power with great caution, we will not make any observation which will affect the majesty of the High Courts.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday constituted a bench of top five judges in the court to deal with the high court order which scoffed at the tendency of the Supreme court “to be more ‘Supreme’ than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser ‘High’ than it constitutionally is.”
The five judge bench was constituted after the Supreme Court of India took note of the high court order on its own motion and registered a suo motu case titled In Re : Order of Punjab and Haryana High court dated 17.07.2024 and ancillary issues.
Justice Sehrawat had criticised Supreme Court for passing stay orders on contempt proceedings before High Court
In his order, Justice Sehrawat had criticised the Supreme court for passing stay orders on contempt proceedings before the High court without considering the consequences of its action.
Justice Sehrawat in his orders also citied Supreme Court itself where it has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Justice Sehrawat says that “Therefore, the relation between High Court and the Supreme Court is not the same as is the relation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) within its jurisdiction and the High Court. In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary Court of unconditional appeal, unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court in specified matters. Therefore, there is no scope for sundry direction being issued by the Supreme Court to a High Court, regarding certain proceeding pending before a High Court.”
But Justice Sehrawat did not stop at this and went on to say “Seen at a psychological plane this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors, firstly a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, is bound to produce, under a pretense that an order of 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 lesser ‘High’ than it constitutionally is.”