The apex court said that while passing the order in 2010, the HC had travelled beyond the matter in dispute before it which is legally impermissible.
"The High Court had not only travelled beyond the lis (matter in dispute) in the first round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of emotional perspective, possibly paving the adventurous path to innovate. It is legally impermissible.
"On the second occasion, where the controversy squarely arose, the High Court did not confine to the restrictions put on the jurisdiction and further, without any kind of deliberation, repeated the earlier direction," a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.
"The order is exceptionally cryptical. That apart, it is legally wholly unsustainable. The High Court, to say the least, had no justification to pave such a path and we have no hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible," the bench, also comprising justices R F Nariman and U U Lalit, said.