On Tuesday, the Apex Court initiated a Suo moto to Punjab Haryana High Court Judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat’s recent order criticizing the Supreme Court for staying proceedings in a matter pending before his bench in “Naurty Ram v. Devender Singh IAS and Anr.” The matter is listed before a 5-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy on Wednesday.
In an order of July 17 Justice Sehrawat stated that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over contempt of court proceedings related to an order issued by the High Court. The Judge said “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 the 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”, Justice Sehrawat further added in his order had even gone to the extent of calling the Supreme Court’ stay order to be “in the nature of controlling roster of High Courts in hearing of criminal cases”.
Justice Sehrawat also commented on the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court saying that the Top Court itself has clarified multiple times that the HIgh Court is not Subordinate to the Supreme Court administratively, he also states that the relation between the High Court and the Cupreme Court is not same as the relation between a Civil Judge of junior division and the High 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 also referred to the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates. “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” said Justice Sehrawat.
The Judge highlighted “drastic and damaging consequences” of such stay orders in contempt proceedings and commented that “may not have occurred to the Supreme court in its most wide imaginations”.
Justice Sehrawat in May this year had also criticized a Division Bench of the High Court for asking the contempt court to not 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”.
The single Judge bench in another matter had recently refused to follow the stay order of a division bench and called it “rubbish order”.
Picture Source :