[BREAKING] SC Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of P&H HC Judge’s Criticism Against Stay Orders | 5-Judge Bench to Hear Matter Today

The Supreme Court Yesterday (August 7th) initiated a suo motu case in relation to Punjab Haryana High Court judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat’s recent order criticising the top court for staying proceedings in a matter pending before his bench. The matter is listed before a five judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy Today.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court initiated a suo motu case concerning Punjab Haryana High Court judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat‘s recent order, which criticized the apex court for staying proceedings in a matter pending before his bench.

The case is scheduled to be heard by a five-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy on Wednesday.

Justice Sehrawat, in his order dated July 17, had asserted that the Supreme Court has no role in contempt of court proceedings related to an order passed by the High Court. He stated,

“The Supreme Court has no role in this aspect except in an appeal against the order of a Division Bench of High Court convicting a contemner. As per the provisions of the Act even an appeal does not lie before the Supreme Court against an order passed by Single Bench, rather it lies before the Division Bench of High Court, and even there, the powers of the appellate Court are well defined, in terms of stage of appeal and in terms of the nature of order which the appellate Court could pass.”

Following this order, the High Court Registrar General, on the orders of the Chief Justice, issued a notice on August 5, declaring that contempt matters at the High Court would now be heard by Justice Harkesh Manuja. Justice Sehrawat had remarked on the Supreme Court’s stay order, calling it

“in the nature of controlling roster of High Courts in hearing of criminal cases.”

He also commented on the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court, noting that the top court itself has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court.

“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,”

-the judge elaborated.

Justice Sehrawat also referenced the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for the designation of advocates as Senior Advocates. He criticized the procedure, stating,

“Even for adopting the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates wherein the procedure of voting in Full Court, as prescribed in the rules; is akin to the one generally prescribed by the State Political Executive for Elections of the Chairman and the Presidents of Municipal Bodies and which is intended to breed servility amongst them by ensuring identification of dissidents so as to put them under threat of impending reprisal, and all such directions have been followed by the High Courts without any murmur, the High Courts may still follow any type of directions coming from the Supreme Court, sometimes out of perceived coercion, sometimes out of due regard for such order, and at some other times for the sake of institutional majesty.”

The judge highlighted the “drastic and damaging consequences” of such stay orders in contempt proceedings, noting that they

“may not have occurred to the Supreme Court in its most wide imaginations.”

He particularly referred to the impact of a stay in another contempt proceeding related to district court judges.

“This Court has come across several such cases, but is specifically mentioning one such case; where the order qua stay of contempt proceedings passed in SLP No.14945 of 2019 has resulted in depriving about 35% strength of Punjab and Haryana Superior Judiciary of their Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale for the past several years. No doubt, the Supreme Court would never have intended such drastic consequences, however, this has actually happened because the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on administrative side, has interpreted this order as a de facto order staying the final order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on judicial side, and has decided not to grant the above said Scales to the judicial officers till the SLP is finally decided by the Supreme Court.”

In light of this, the judge questioned who was responsible for the plight of judicial officers – whether it was the High Court or the Supreme Court.

“A soul searching on this aspect by the High Court and the Supreme Court may surprise both of them equally. However, this, in humble opinion of this Court should sound a note of caution even for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order. Otherwise, if this is the interpretation given by a High Court to such an order then one can very well imagine the damage which could ensue between private parties, on account of such an order, where the parties are intensely fighting with each other,”

-he remarked.

Justice Sehrawat had previously criticized a Division Bench in May this year for asking the contempt court not to proceed with a matter before it.

“The contempt Court does not draw its jurisdiction and powers to consider and decide a contempt petition; from any authorization or concession conferred upon it by any Division Bench. The contempt Court, per se, has that authority and powers as per the Contempt of Courts Act, and more widely, under the provisions of the Constitution of India itself,”

-he stated.

In another matter, the single-judge recently refused to follow the stay order of a Division Bench and called it a “rubbish order.” He also reportedly said that such orders of the Division Bench and even the Supreme Court are non-est.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES