Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of Punjab and Haryana High Court judge's criticism against stay orders

The Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated a suo motu case in relation to Punjab Haryana High Court judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat's recent order criticising the top court for staying proceedings in a matter pending before his bench [Naurty Ram vs Devender Singh IAS and Anr]..The matter is listed before a five 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 passed on July 17, Justice Sehrawat had said that the Supreme Court has no role in relation to the contempt of court proceedings pertaining to an order passed by the High Court.Probably more caution on the part of the Supreme Court would have been more appropriate, the judge had 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 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,” the single-judge said..Pertinently, days after the order was passed, in a modification to roster, the High Court Registrar General on the orders of Chief Justice of the High Court had by way of a notice dated August 5 declared that the contempt matters at the High Court would now be heard by Justice Harkesh Manuja. .Justice Sehrawat in his order had even gone to the extent of calling the Supreme Court’s stay order to be “in the nature of controlling roster of High Courts in hearing of criminal cases”.The judge had also commented on the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court and said that top court itself has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court administratively. The relation between the High Court and Supreme Court is not same as the relation between a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the High Court, Justice Sehrawat had said.“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 had written about the Supreme Court's stay order..Interestingly, Justice Sehrawat had also referred to the rules suggested by the Supreme Court for 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,” the judge said..Justice Sehrawat had then highlighted "drastic and damaging consequences" of such stay orders in contempt proceedings and commented that same "may not have occurred to the Supreme Court in its most wide imaginations."In particular, the judge had referred to the impact of stay in another contempt proceedings related to district court judges. “This Court has come across several such cases, but is specifically mentioning one such case; where the order qua stay of contempt proceedings passed in SLP No.14945 of 2019 has resulted in depriving about 35% strength of Punjab and Haryana Superior Judiciary of their Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale for the past several years. No doubt, the Supreme Court would never have intended such drastic consequences, however, this has actually happened because the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on administrative side, has interpreted this order as a de facto order staying the final order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on judicial side, and has decided not to grant the above said Scales to the judicial officers till the SLP is finally decided by the Supreme Court.”.In this context, the judge had asked who was responsible for the plight of judicial officers - whether the High Court or Supreme Court.“A soul searching on this aspect by the High Court and the Supreme Court may surprise both of them equally. However, this, in humble opinion of this Court should sound a note of caution even for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order. Otherwise, if this is the interpretation given by a High Court to such an order then one can very well imagine the damage which could ensue between private parties, on account of such an order, where the parties are intensely fighting with each other,” the order said..Justice Sehrawat in May this year had also criticised 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 judge had said..Interestingly, the single-judge in another matter had recently refused to follow the stay order of a Division Bench and orally called it a “rubbish order”. The judge is also reported to have said that such orders of the Division Bench and even Supreme Court are non-est..Advocate Ravinder Malik (Ravi) represented the petitioner.Advocate Arvind Seth represented the respondent.[Read High Court Order]