Contempt Of Courts Act | Appeal U/s 19 Maintainable Against Directions Regarding Merits Of Dispute E

In a striking decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized the Supreme Court for allegedly overstepping its constitutional bounds and diminishing the authority of High Courts. The criticism came from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat on July 17, 2024, raising important questions about the dynamics between the Supreme Court and High Courts within India's judicial system.

 

This case originated from a contempt petition where the Supreme Court had intervened by staying the contempt proceedings underway in the High Court. Justice Sehrawat argued that this stay order not only disrupts constitutional conformity but also exacerbates the backlog of cases in the High Court. He stressed that High Courts should not be seen as subordinate to the Supreme Court, pointing out that constitutional provisions affirm their independent status. “The Supreme Court has clarified multiple times that High Courts are not subordinate,” Sehrawat noted.

 

The case involved a contempt petition by Naurty Ram against Devender Singh IAS and another party. After a compliance report was filed, the Supreme Court’s order on May 3, 2024, stayed the contempt proceedings but did not affect the order being challenged. This intervention by the Supreme Court has sparked significant constitutional debate.

 

Justice Sehrawat criticized this approach, suggesting that the Supreme Court's order could lead to unintended consequences. He argued that this type of stay reflects a tendency to evade responsibility and a misconception of the Supreme Court’s role. “This order appears driven by two factors: a desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences of such orders and an overestimation of the Supreme Court’s supremacy,” Sehrawat observed.

 

He urged the Supreme Court to exercise greater caution and precision in its rulings, warning that vague orders could have severe impacts if misinterpreted by litigants. Despite this critique, the High Court decided to adjourn the case indefinitely until the Supreme Court’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) is resolved.

 

Justice Sehrawat acknowledged the complexities involved and suggested that while it’s ideal for the High Court to adhere to the Supreme Court’s orders, practical limitations might occasionally prevent this. “Such situations should be avoided as much as possible,” he concluded.