2024 (8) TMI 1557 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial Hierarchy Upheld: Single Judge Remarks Expunged for Undermining Constitutional Respect and Institutional Integrity

SC addressed critical issues of judicial discipline involving a HC Single Judge's inappropriate observations about a SC order. The Court expunged the ... Correctness of observations made by a Single Judge of the High Court in the course of contempt proceedings - proceedings taken suo motu in the context of an order passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while entertaining a contempt proceeding - HELD THAT:- This Court is constrained to take suo motu notice of the contents of the order dated 17 July 2024 passed by the Single Judge in view of the fact that such observations tend to bring the entire judicial machinery into disrepute. This affects not only the dignity of this Court, but of the High Courts as well - such observations were wholly unnecessary for the conduct of the judicial proceedings before the High Court and ought to have been eschewed. Though there is a merit in the submission which has been urged by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, it is inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing a further course of action based on the observations of the Single Judge. The order dated 17 July 2024 is compounded by a video which has been circulating indicating random, gratuitous and unwarranted remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat during the course of the hearing. In an age where there is widespread reporting of every proceeding which takes place in the Court, particularly in the context of live streaming which is intended to provide access to justice to citizens, it is all the more necessary that Judges should exercise due restraint and responsibility in the observations which are made in the course of proceedings. Observations of the nature which have proliferated in the video of the proceedings of the Single Judge can cause incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process. Conclusion - Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation, bearing in mind the structure of the Indian legal system and the authority of the Supreme Court which heads the process of judicial adjudication of the country. The present proceedings are accordingly disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:Whether the observations made by a Single Judge of the High Court in the course of contempt proceedings, which were critical of the Supreme Court, were appropriate or warranted.The extent and nature of judicial discipline and comity between the Supreme Court and High Courts within the hierarchical judicial system of India.The constitutional obligation of lower courts and judges to comply with and respect the orders of the Supreme Court.The appropriate remedial or corrective measures available to the Supreme Court when observations by a High Court judge undermine the authority and dignity of the apex court.The responsibility of judges to exercise restraint in their observations during court proceedings, especially in the context of modern live-streaming and public access to judicial processes.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Appropriateness of the Single Judge's Observations Critical of the Supreme CourtRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court reiterated principles from prior decisions, notably the ruling in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd v State of Bihar, which emphasize the importance of judicial discipline and the hierarchical nature of the judicial system. These principles underscore that judges at all levels must maintain respect for the orders of higher courts and avoid gratuitous or unnecessary commentary that could undermine judicial authority.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the observations made by the Single Judge of the High Court in the order dated 17 July 2024 were 'totally unnecessary' and 'gratuitous.' The Court emphasized that such remarks were not required for the adjudication of the contempt proceedings and that they adversely affected the dignity of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the order containing the observations was part of the public record and that a video circulating publicly amplified the impact of the remarks, which were described as random, gratuitous, and unwarranted. The Court recognized the potential harm such comments cause to the sanctity of the judicial process.Application of law to facts: Applying the principle that compliance with Supreme Court orders is a constitutional obligation, the Court held that the Single Judge's remarks undermined the hierarchical judicial system and were inconsistent with judicial discipline. The Court stressed that judges are never personally aggrieved by orders of higher courts and must exercise restraint.Treatment of competing arguments: While the Attorney General and Solicitor General argued that the order affected the dignity of both courts, the Supreme Court chose to exercise restraint and did not initiate further punitive action against the Single Judge. Instead, the Court focused on corrective measures to uphold judicial discipline without escalating the matter.Conclusion: The Court concluded that the observations were wholly unnecessary and ought to have been avoided, warranting expunction from the order to preserve judicial dignity.Issue 2: Judicial Discipline and Comity Between the Supreme Court and High CourtsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court reaffirmed the hierarchical nature of the Indian judicial system and the principle of comity between courts. It emphasized that the Supreme Court, as the apex judicial authority, commands constitutional authority that must be respected by all subordinate courts.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court underscored that judicial discipline is essential to preserve the dignity of all judicial institutions and that compliance with Supreme Court orders is not discretionary but mandatory. The Court noted that no judge is personally affected by orders passed by superior courts and that disagreement with such orders is irrelevant to the obligation to comply.Key evidence and findings: The Court referred to the ongoing contempt proceedings and the observations made therein as an example of the breach of judicial discipline, which threatened to dislocate the sanctity of judicial authority.Application of law to facts: The Court applied these principles to the facts by expunging the offending observations and issuing a caution to judges to exercise greater care in future, thereby reinforcing the principle of judicial comity and discipline.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the bona fide actions of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had taken suo motu cognizance and stayed the Single Judge's order, but emphasized that such internal remedies do not absolve the Supreme Court of its duty to maintain judicial authority.Conclusion: The Court affirmed the necessity of maintaining judicial discipline and respect for hierarchical authority within the judiciary.Issue 3: Responsibility of Judges in the Era of Live Streaming and Public AccessRelevant legal framework: While no specific statutory provisions were cited, the Court recognized the evolving context of judicial proceedings being live-streamed and widely reported, which raises the stakes for judicial conduct and public perception.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court expressed concern that the remarks made by the Single Judge, amplified by circulating video recordings, could cause 'incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process.' It emphasized the need for judges to exercise 'due restraint and responsibility' in their oral and written observations during proceedings.Application of law to facts: The Court's cautionary remarks were directly linked to the facts of the case, where the video of the hearing revealed inappropriate commentary, thus highlighting the risks posed by modern transparency tools if judicial discipline is not maintained.Conclusion: The Court urged circumspection in future judicial conduct, especially given the enhanced public visibility of court proceedings.Issue 4: Appropriate Remedial Measures for Undermining Supreme Court AuthorityRelevant legal framework: The Supreme Court's inherent powers to regulate judicial discipline and maintain the authority of the apex court were implicitly invoked.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court decided against issuing a notice or initiating a formal inquiry against the Single Judge, preferring to exercise restraint. Instead, it chose to expunge the offending observations from the order and issue a strong expression of caution to prevent recurrence.Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the need to uphold judicial authority with the potential consequences for the judge involved, opting for a corrective rather than punitive approach at this stage.Conclusion: The Court disposed of the proceedings by expunging the remarks and cautioning judges to maintain judicial discipline, signaling that future interventions may be necessary if similar conduct recurs.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Gratuitous observations in regard to previous orders passed by the Supreme Court or for that matter in the course of the same proceedings are absolutely unwarranted.''Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation, bearing in mind the structure of the Indian legal system and the authority of the Supreme Court which heads the process of judicial adjudication of the country.''Whether individual judges are in agreement with the merits or otherwise of an order passed by a superior court is besides the point. Every Judge is bound by the discipline which the hierarchical nature of the judicial system imposes within the system.''Observations of the nature which have proliferated in the video of the proceedings of the Single Judge can cause incalculable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process.''This Court in the exercise of its affirmative obligations as the custodian of the adjudicatory process would be failing in its duty if it were not to intervene by expunging the remarks which were made in the order dated 17 July 2024.'Core principles established include the imperative of judicial discipline within the hierarchical judicial system, the constitutional obligation to comply with Supreme Court orders, the inadmissibility of gratuitous criticism of higher courts by subordinate judges, and the necessity for judicial restraint in an era of live-streamed proceedings.Final determinations on each issue are as follows: the observations made by the Single Judge were unnecessary and have been expunged; judicial discipline and comity must be preserved; judges must exercise restraint in public remarks; and the Supreme Court will intervene to maintain the sanctity of judicial authority but will exercise restraint in initiating formal inquiries absent further provocation.