Hearing an appeal on a Punjab High Court judgment on regularisation of services of staff at a private golf house, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court made certain critical observations described by the press as an “unprecedented confession” and as showing “remarkable candour” in admitting that the highest judiciary was overreaching its powers.

I am constrained to write this article as the tone and tenor of the judgment is likely to shake the confidence of the common man in the Supreme Court, which is the strongest pillar of our constitutional democracy. With utmost respect to the two honourable judges, I am sincerely of the view that the criticism they have made is unfortunate and unprecedented and has crossed the Lakshman rekha of judicial discipline.

The judges have referred to various orders passed by the Delhi High Court and criticised them as interference in the executive domain. The Supreme Court, as the highest court of the land, has not only the power but also the duty to make such criticism and, through it, lay down guidelines for all courts in the country. Therefore, the Supreme Court is fully justified in criticising orders of high court and trial court judges.

But the two-judge bench has blamed the Supreme Court itself, stating that it had passed orders that resulted in an upsetting of the constitutional balance of democracy, defined by the limits of the jurisdiction of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The bench was referring to the Supreme Court order in the Jagadamika Pal case of 1998 and the Jharkhand Assembly case of 2005.

... contd.