'Sorry state of affairs', 'atrocious': 5 times Supreme Court criticised Delhi High Court orders

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court's Justice BR Gavai quipped during a hearing that the Delhi High Court is giving Gujarat judges competition when it comes to questionable reasoning in bail and remand orders..This, after the High Court had upheld the arrest of journalist Prabir Purkayastha under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had held that under this Act, it is not mandatory to supply grounds of arrest to the accused in writing.In doing so, the High Court missed the opportunity to extend the Supreme Court’s findings on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the Pankaj Bansal judgement to the UAPA. Purkayastha’s lawyers had argued that the relevant sections in the two statutes are pari materia.The Supreme Court eventually overturned the High Court order, declared the editor’s arrest illegal and said that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to the accused even in UAPA cases..This is not the first time in the recent past that orders of the Delhi High Court - touted as one of the best High Courts in the country - have invoked the ire of the Supreme Court. A number of such instances, detailed below, have been seen over the past year or so..Manish Sisodia case and personal liberty: High Court and trial court playing safe on bail?.When Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena called for a probe into the now scrapped Delhi Excise Policy, little did anyone know that this would culminate in the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia, and the entire top brass of the Aam Aadmi Party. Sisodia had cited delay in the trial as one of the grounds to seek bail. When he moved his bail plea, the trial court blamed him for the delay and rejected bail. While rejecting Sisodia's second bail plea, the Delhi High Court observed that delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), who arrested him.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that Sisodia cannot be entitled to bail solely on the ground of delay in the trial, “especially when he has failed to pass the triple test and other parameters including gravity of offence, for grant of bail”..The top court took a diametrically opposite view. A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan released the AAP leader on bail after noting that the prolonged delay in trial has violated Sisodia’s right to speedy trial, a facet of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.The Bench criticised the High Court and trial court for "playing it safe" and reiterated that bail is the rule..“Bail can be stayed only in rare and exceptional circumstances”: The curious case of Parvinder Singh Khurana.On June 17, 2023, Parvinder Khurana was granted regular bail by the trial court. On June 23, a vacation bench headed by Justice Amit Mahajan passed an ex parte order and stayed the bail. The Court listed the case for hearing on June 26, on which it could not hear it. It came up on June 28 before a different judge, who listed it before the roster bench.For the next few dates, adjournments and arguments continued on the cancellation of bail, even as the interim stay on the trial court order continued. On November 10, an order passed by Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar noted that the arguments were complete and the matter was reserved for order. However, on December 22, Justice Bhatnagar recused..From January 8 to March 5, the case was repeatedly adjourned without any hearing. On March 11, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri recused. The matter was listed before him on eight dates. The next day, the case was moved to Justice Amit Mahajan (who had passed the order of stay). This time, even he recused..A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih strongly objected to the way the matter had been handled in the High Court.It said that the stay order of June 23, 2023 was mechanical and continued to operate for a year even though Khurana was not heard.“Except for stating that this is a sorry state of affairs, we cannot say anything further as we must show restraint,” the top court said.The Bench made it clear that the power to grant an interim stay of operation of order to bail can be exercised only in exceptional cases when a very strong prima facie case for cancellation of bail is made out..SpiceJet v Kalanithi Maran arbitration order “atrocious” .A single-judge of the Delhi High Court passed two orders effectively upholding the arbitral tribunal awards directing low-cost carrier SpiceJet to pay ₹270 crore to Kalanithi Maran.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stressed that the scope of interference in such proceedings is limited and that SpiceJet had failed to show any illegality in the tribunal order..The airline company challenged the order before the Division Bench, which set aside the single-judge’s order.When Maran challenged the order before the Supreme Court, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra termed the single-judge’s judgement “atrocious”.“All that we can say about a single judge filling up 250 pages is not writing a judgment under Section 34 (of the Arbitration Act). This is atrocious. Just numbers of SC judgments saying interference is limited. Let us not make any observations about this single judge. Where has he even applied his mind?" the CJI observed.The Court agreed with the Division Bench’s ruling and sent the matter back to another judge..Criminal case against College Romance actors/producers: Objectivity in judicial mind completely lost?.The Delhi High Court in March 2023 upheld an order directing the registration of a first information report (FIR) against actors and makers of web-series College Romance for obscenity.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the show was so obscene and vulgar that she had to watch it with earphones in her chamber and the language used “will deprave and corrupt the minds of young people”..A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court set aside the High Court directions, ruling that the order was based on “irrelevant considerations” and there was a serious error in decision making.The metric to assess obscenity and legality of any content cannot be that it must be appropriate to play in the courtroom, the apex court said.It added that the High Court’s approach unduly curtails the freedom of expression and compels the content creator to meet the requirements of judicial propriety, formality and official language..Judicial officers can’t criticise police?.An additional sessions judge (ASJ) from a Delhi court moved the Supreme Court to expunge the remarks made against him by the High Court in its judgment.The ASJ had criticised the Delhi Police for its conduct and passed certain strictures. Justice Anish Dayal set aside those observations and held that the trial judge’s order was “stigmatizing in its tone and tenor” and “beyond the ken of expected judicial conduct.".A Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka took up the matter and criticised the High Court’s “Practise in the Trial of Criminal Cases”, rules that "it is undesirable for courts to make remarks censuring the actions of police officers unless the remarks are strictly relevant to the case."The top court remarked that these rules should be struck down.“How can the High Court dictate how a judgment should be written? This is interfering with judicial officers. It has to go," the Court said.The counsel appearing for Delhi High Court sought time to take instructions in the matter. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court.