Summary
Taking suo motu notice of an order passed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a contempt case, the Supreme Court expunged the Judge's gratuitous observations about the Supreme Court, holding that compliance with its orders is a constitutional obligation and that judges must observe hierarchical judicial discipline, but declined to issue notice to the Judge.
Issues
- Whether gratuitous observations made by a High Court Single Judge about orders of the Supreme Court, in an order passed in contempt proceedings, called for intervention by the Supreme Court.
- What course the Supreme Court should adopt, given that a Division Bench of the High Court had already stayed the Single Judge's order.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe proceedings were registered as a suo motu writ petition under Article 32; the Court acted as custodian of the adjudicatory process to expunge remarks that undermined its authority and judicial discipline. (¶¶ 6, 8, 10)
Held
- Judicial discipline within the hierarchical judicial system preserves the dignity of courts at every level. Observations about previous orders of the Supreme Court that are unnecessary for deciding the matter before a High Court Judge are wholly unwarranted. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Compliance with orders of the Supreme Court is not optional but a binding constitutional obligation flowing from the structure of the legal system. Parties may be aggrieved by an order, but judges are never aggrieved by orders of a higher constitutional or appellate forum, and whether an individual judge agrees with a superior court's order is beside the point. (¶¶ 4, 8)
- Such observations tend to bring the whole judicial machinery into disrepute and affect the dignity of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. Even though a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the High Court had bona fide stayed the order, the Supreme Court considered it its own function to set right the undermining of its authority, and expunged the observations. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- With proceedings widely reported and live-streamed, judges must exercise restraint and responsibility in remarks made during hearings; the Court noted a circulating video of unwarranted remarks by the Judge during the hearing and urged circumspection. (¶ 9)
- Exercising restraint, the Court declined to issue notice to the Single Judge, since that would subject the Judge to judicial adjudication or inquiry, and confined itself to expunging the remarks with a word of caution. (¶¶ 6, 10)
Result
Observations in the Single Judge's order dated 17 July 2024 expunged with an expression of caution; no notice issued to the Judge; suo motu proceedings disposed of.