'Scandalous': SC expunges HC judge's remark criticising top court in order

CJI Chandrachud emphasises that the discipline of the system has to be maintained. The bench had taken suo motu cognisance of the order passed by the HC judge on July 17

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Rajbir Sehrawat for his critical observations against the apex court while dealing with a contempt case and expunged his remarks.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud led a five-judge bench to say that "judicial discipline” has to be maintained while refusing to initiate any proceedings against the judge. Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hrishikesh Roy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant were also part of the bench.

The court said that it was pained by the observations made by Sehrawat, noting they were "scandalous" and "unwarranted” and his order “lowered the dignity” of the High Court. It noted that compliance with an order passed by the apex court is not a matter of choice but a matter of binding legal system.

During the hearing, Chandrachud emphasised that the discipline of the system has to be maintained. The bench had taken suo motu cognisance of the order passed by the High Court judge on July 17.

It said that it expected greater caution in future while dealing with orders of higher courts. The bench noted that neither the Supreme nor the High Court were supreme and supremacy is actually of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sehrawat was critical of an apex court order staying contempt proceedings and had said that the top court did not have a role in the proceedings initiated by the High Court.

In his order from July 17, he stated that, on a psychological level, this type of order (by the Supreme Court) is driven mainly by two factors. He said that the first factor was to avoid taking responsibility for the likely consequences of such an order, pretending that a stay on contempt proceedings does not harm anyone.

“....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," he had said.