The Supreme Court's stay of contempt proceedings does not undermine the High Court's exclusive authority under Article 215, raising concerns about judicial accountability and constitutional conformity.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed fresh compliance report by way of additional affidavit of Meenakxee Raj, Secretary, HSVP. The same it taken on record. Registry is directed to scan the same and place it at appropriate place in the file.

2. Alongwith the aforesaid compliance report, there is an order dated 03.05.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.9638 of 2024, whereby the contempt proceedings before the High Court have been stayed. Had the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order impugned before it, then this Court would have dismissed the contempt petition ipso facto, as is the normal practice in this Court. However, that has not been done. Rather, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given rise to a problem of Constitutional Conformity vis-a-vis the Court Compliance, besides increasing the pendency before this Court by one more case. One never knows how many more case in execution and contempt petition may have been kept pending throughout the Country because of such orders.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the relation between High Court and the Supreme Court is not the same as is the relation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) within its jurisdiction and the High Court. In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary Court of unconditional appeal, unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court in specified matters. Therefore, there is no scope for sundry direction being issued by the Supreme Court to a High Court, regarding certain proceeding pending before a High Court.

4. Though under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court can permit an appeal and entertain the same against an order of any Court, including an appeal directly from the order of a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), however, that is a provision for appeals through special leave from the Supreme Court. Even this Article use non-obstante clause qua only provision contained in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution of India and not qua the provisions contained in Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution of India containing Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The power of the High Court under Article 215, is framed in exactly the same language as in Article 129 of the Constitution of India under which the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt qua its own orders. Therefore, Article 215 of the Constitution of India, per se, is not even subject to the Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Although, the Supreme Court has used this provision even for passing interim orders in SLP entertained against interim order passed by High Courts in a revision petition against an interim order passed by the District Court in an appeal against an interim order passed by the Civil Court, however, it is for the Supreme Court to decide as to how 'ordinarily' this provision is to be used for entertaining 'special' appeals. But in the present case even this provision has not been invoked.

5. As an answer to the query from the Court, learned counsel for the respondents has clarified that the respondents have not filed any appeal against any order passed by this Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the respondents before the Supreme Court is only against the order passed by the Writ Court and the Division Bench. However, the operation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which is under challenged before the Supreme Court has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, legally and effectually the said order is having full legal force.

6. Since, the operation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been stayed by the Supreme Court and the respondents have no