'Completely Unnecessary', Says Supreme Court On Presumed-Supremacy Accusations
A single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had made some crude observations after the apex court stayed a contempt proceeding.
The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that compliance with the orders of the top court is not a matter of choice but a constitutional duty, as it expunged the observations made by a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, said judicial discipline in an established hierarchical structure aims to uphold the dignity of all institutions, whether they are district courts, high courts or the Supreme Court. "Every judge is bound by the hierarchy of judicial discipline."
Last month, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made some crude observations regarding the top court. The single judge's comments came after the apex court stayed a contempt proceeding initiated by the high court.
Observations made by the single judge were completely unnecessary for the order that was ultimately passed, the court remarked. "This is a matter of grave concern."
However, the top court restrained from taking any action against the single judge in light of the fact that a division bench of the high court has taken cognizance of the single judge's observations and will be dealing with it directly.
On the aspect of live streaming and how it has got into the mainstream for better access to justice, the apex court observed that it is necessary that judges to exercise due restraint regarding the observations made in court during proceedings, as these observations can cause impalpable harm to the sanctity of the judicial process.
Criticising the stay order, the single judge said the power to initiate and to continue the proceedings for alleged contempt qua an order passed by the high court lies exclusively with the high court as per the Constitution. "More caution on the part of the Supreme Court would have been more appropriate," the judge said.
The judge had remarked that the top court has a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more "Supreme" than it actually is and to presume a high court to be "less high" than it constitutionally is. The judge went on to say that the damaging consequences from measures like an order of stay of contempt proceedings might not have occurred to the top court in its widest of imaginations.
This order of the high court prompted the apex court to take a suo moto note of the case for a hearing by a five-judge bench.
