Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Highlights Rehabilitation Prospects

The Bench explained that the friend‑philosopher‑guide model entails offering guidance, sharing judicial wisdom, and assisting subordinate judges in improving their performance through mentorship and constructive feedback. It cautioned against issuing orders that compel training or other corrective actions without first providing an opportunity for the concerned judge to explain his or her conduct. The Court held that any corrective measure must be proportionate, preceded by a show‑cause notice, and grounded in the principles of natural justice.

The Court added that the high court’s direction, in the present instance, failed to meet these safeguards and therefore was set aside. It reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction of high courts must be exercised with restraint and with the objective of strengthening judicial independence rather than undermining it.

Also Read - Supreme Court Full Court Resolves to Hear 100 Batch Matters and Introduce Case Management Measures

Film Makers Seek Relief Against Orissa High Court Ban

The third item recorded in the round‑up noted that the producers of the film titled “Mahaprabhu Jagannath” have approached the Supreme Court challenging a ban imposed by the Orissa High Court. The Court did not elaborate on the merits of the ban or the relief sought in the excerpt, but it acknowledged the filing of a special leave petition or equivalent remedy by the film makers.

The Bench indicated that it would examine whether the high court’s order restricting the exhibition or distribution of the film complied with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression, and whether any procedural lapses attended the passing of the ban. The Court emphasized that any restriction on artistic expression must be justified under the permissible grounds laid down in Article 19(2) of the Constitution and must be proportionate to the objective sought.

Also Read - US Court Seeks Clarity on DOJ’s Decision to Dismiss Charges Against Gautam Adani

The Court further observed that the entertainment industry frequently invokes judicial scrutiny when state actions impinge on creative liberty, and it affirmed its willingness to consider such petitions on an expedited basis where a prima facie case of illegality is made out.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on July 16, 2026 reinforce the appellate duty to reason independently, delineate the proper supervisory posture of high courts over subordinate judges, and signal a vigilant stance towards safeguarding freedom of expression in the realm of cinematic works. The observations collectively aim to promote reasoned adjudication, judicial collegiality, and constitutional protection of artistic liberty.

Also Read - Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Man Charged Over Social Media Post Showing PM Apologising to Pakistan