A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This suo motu case addresses gratuitous observations made by a Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge regarding previous Supreme Court orders. The Supreme Court observed that such comments undermine judicial discipline, disrupt the hierarchical respect essential to India’s legal framework, and erode public trust. The Court emphasized judicial restraint and expunged the remarks from the record, underscoring the sanctity of judicial processes and the binding nature of superior court orders. The proceedings were disposed of with a warning to prevent recurrence.

Keywords: Contempt of Court, Judicial Discipline, Hierarchical Nature, Gratuitous Observations, Sanctity of Judicial Process

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
In Re: Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 17.07.2024 and Ancillary Issues

ii) Case Number:
Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 8 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
07 August 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

vi) Author:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India

vii) Citation:
2024 INSC 594; [2024] 8 S.C.R. 949

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India
• Principles of judicial hierarchy and discipline

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to:
Constitutional Law, Judicial Discipline, Contempt of Court

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings in light of a judgment dated 17 July 2024 by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court judgment included comments criticizing Supreme Court orders in a manner deemed inappropriate. The case arose from a contempt proceeding involving public officials but quickly escalated due to the remarks undermining judicial decorum. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to address the breach of judicial hierarchy and to prevent erosion of institutional dignity.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat presided over a contempt case titled Naurty Ram v. Devender Singh IAS & Anr., COCP-87-2022 (O&M).
2. During proceedings, the Judge made remarks criticizing earlier Supreme Court orders.
3. These remarks became part of the public record, attracting criticism for undermining judicial discipline.
4. A video recording of the proceedings further amplified public awareness, raising concerns about judicial propriety.
5. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by the Chief Justice, stayed the Judge’s order and took suo motu notice of the comments.
6. The Supreme Court acted to expunge the remarks, ensuring they did not compromise the judicial system’s integrity.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether gratuitous remarks by a High Court Judge against Supreme Court orders should be expunged for preserving judicial discipline.
ii. To what extent does the hierarchical structure of Indian judiciary bind lower courts to adhere to superior court rulings?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The proceedings were initiated suo motu. No specific arguments by a petitioner/appellant are on record. The Attorney General and Solicitor General, however, emphasized:

1. Judicial remarks should respect the constitutional hierarchy and institutional dignity.
2. The High Court Judge’s comments undermined the Supreme Court’s authority, necessitating intervention.
3. Non-compliance with Supreme Court rulings erodes the foundations of the legal framework.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

As the proceedings were initiated suo motu, there were no formal respondents or their arguments presented in defense.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Judicial Discipline: Judges at all levels must respect the hierarchical nature of the judiciary. Superior court orders are binding and not open to public criticism by lower court judges.
2. Sanctity of Judicial Process: Gratuitous observations undermine the credibility of judicial institutions and cause harm to the judicial process’s integrity.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Judicial Restraint in Live Proceedings: In an age of live-streaming and public scrutiny, judicial comments carry greater weight and require caution.
2. Institutional Dignity: Public remarks by judges should enhance, not erode, trust in the judicial system.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Expunging Remarks: All gratuitous observations made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the order dated 17 July 2024 were expunged.
2. Judicial Restraint: Judges are urged to exercise greater caution when commenting on superior court decisions.
3. No Notice to High Court Judge: The Supreme Court refrained from issuing formal notice to avoid prejudicing the Judge but issued a stern caution.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the sanctity of judicial hierarchy and discipline within India’s constitutional framework. It underscores the need for judicial restraint, particularly in the context of live-streaming and increased public scrutiny. The expungement of the remarks aligns with the Supreme Court’s role as the custodian of judicial integrity and authority.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 32 of the Constitution of India