IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial Discipline – Gratuitous observations in regard to previous orders passed by Supreme Court or for that matter in course of same proceedings are absolutely unwarranted – Compliance with orders passed by Supreme Court is not a matter of choice, but a matter of bounden constitutional obligation.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

1. The Court has taken up these proceedings suo motu in the context of an order dated 17 July 2024 passed by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while entertaining a contempt proceeding titled Naurty Ram vs. Devender Singh IAS and Another, COCP-87-2022 (O&M).

2. The underlying facts which gave rise to the contempt proceeding do not need to engage the attention of this Court. However, while dealing with the contempt proceedings, Justice Sehrawat has made observations in regard to the Supreme Court of India. Those observations are a matter of grave concern. Since the order forms part of the public record of the High Court, it is unnecessary for this Court to extract those observations, particularly, given the course of action which this Court proposes to adopt.

3. The principles governing the comity between the High Courts, on one hand, and the Supreme Court as the apex judicial institution of the country, on the other, are dealt with in numerous decisions of this Court. We may only reiterate the principles which have been laid down in the decision of this Court in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 1.

4. Judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the judicial system is intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions, whether at the level of District, High Court or Supreme Court. The observations in the order of the Single Judge dated 17 July 2024 were totally unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. 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. In passing its orders, including orders of the nature that gave rise to the observations of the Single Judge, this Court discharges its plain duty. Parties may be aggrieved by an order. Judges are never aggrieved by an order which is passed by a higher constitutional or appellate forum.

5. The Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General, while dilating on the background of the case which led to the passing of the order dated 17 July 2024, have submitted that the order of the Single Judge has affected the dignity not only of this Court, but of the High Court as well.

6. 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. We are accordingly of the view that 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, we are inclined to exercise a degree of restraint in pursuing a further course of action based on the observations of the Single Judge.

7. The Court is apprised of the fact that the Division Bench of the High Court presided over by the Chief Justice has taken suo motu notice¹ [CWP-19068-2024 (O&M) dated 7 August 2024] of the observations made by the Single Judge and stayed the operation of the order of the Single Judge.

8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid exercise which has been carried out bona fide by the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, we are of the view that in a situation where the authority of this Court is undermined by gratuitous observations made by the Single Judge, it is the plain function of this Court to set right any attempt to dislocate the sanctity of judic