New Delhi: On 19 April last year, the Allahabad High Court (HC) witnessed unprecedented scenes as two senior Uttar Pradesh government officials were taken into custody from court premises on its orders.
The reason? The HC felt that the conduct of the officials — secretary and special secretary in the UP finance department — in “suppressing material facts and misleading the court” prima facie amounts to criminal contempt of court.
It had also issued bailable warrants against the chief secretary and additional chief secretary (finance). All this because the state government cited legal obstacles in implementing the high court’s 4 April directions on providing domestic help and other facilities to former chief justices and judges of the high court.
The matter has since snowballed, with a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Wednesday issuing a set of standard operating procedures on personal appearances by government officials in court proceedings.
The SC was hearing appeals challenging two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court on 4 and 19 April last year. Through these orders, the high court summoned government officials and also initiated contempt proceedings against them.
According to the SOP, government officials participating in court proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing, and courts should avoid passing oral remarks with the potential to humiliate the officials.
“The conduct of the high court in frequently summoning government officials to exert pressure on the government, under the threat of contempt, is impermissible,” said the apex court, adding: “Summoning officials repeatedly, instead of relying on the law officers representing the government or the submissions of the government on affidavit, runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.”
The SC said that the SOP framed by it on personal appearances by government officials in proceedings must be followed by all courts across the country.
All high courts, it added, shall consider framing rules to regulate the appearances of government officials in courts, after taking into account the SOP framed.
Also Read: ‘Ill-intended transfer, meant to harass’ — HC judge’s remark puts focus back on judicial transfers
‘No comments on physical appearance’
In its order, the SC observed that courts must refrain from summoning government officials as the first resort and that summoning them frequently without just cause is not permissible.
It said that, in exceptional cases in which in-person appearance of a government official is called for, the court should allow, as a first option, the official to appear before it through video conferencing. The link for the video conferencing should be sent to the official a day before the scheduled hearing.
The SC also said that when the personal presence of an official is directed, reasons should be recorded as to why.
Further, it asserted that due notice should be given to the official so that they can come prepared and assist the court.
As for when the officials do appear in court, the order said, “The court must refrain from making comments on the physical appearance, educational background, or social standing of the official appearing before it.”
“Comments on the dress of the official appearing before the court should be avoided unless there is a violation of the specified dress code applicable to their office,” it added.
The SOP also said that the court should, to the extent possible, designate a specific time slot when an official has been asked to be personally present in court. During the hearing, it said that officials should be required to stand only when they are responding to or making statements in court.
The Supreme Court asserted that “courts must cultivate an environment of respect and professionalism”.
The bench also prodded courts to be mindful of the fact that ensuring compliance with judicial orders involving intricate policy matters necessitates navigating various levels of decision-making by the government.
It said that the court must consider these complexities before establishing specific timelines for compliance with its orders.
In its order, the court also laid down guidelines on personal presence for contempt of court proceedings.
Also Read: Padma awards & surrogate ads — what’s case against Shah Rukh & others for ‘endorsing’ pan masala
The two orders set aside
The two orders passed by the Allahabad HC challenged before the Supreme Court were passed on a petition filed in 2011 before the high court by the Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges in Allahabad.
Among other things, the petition sought an increase in the allowance granted to former HC judges for domestic help and other expenses.
Through the first order passed on 4 April, the high court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to notify rules proposed by the chief justice of the high court pertaining to domestic help to former chief justices and judges of the Allahabad HC. The court ordered certain state government officials to be present before it on the next date, if the order was not complied with.
However, in response, the state government filed an application before the high court, seeking a recall of the 4 April order, citing legal obstacles in complying with the direction.
The high court then on 19 April, held that the recall application was “contemptuous” and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against various officials of the state government.
The officials present in the court on the date, including the secretary (finance) and special secretary (finance), were taken into custody, and bailable warrants were issued against the chief secretary and the additional chief secretary (finance).
They were to be produced before the court on the next day for framing of charges. However, the Supreme Court swiftly stayed this order on 20 April.
In its judgment passed Wednesday, the apex court said that the high court’s orders raised significant questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning government officials to court.
The SC then set aside the two April orders, opining that the high court did not have the power to direct the state government to notify rules proposed by the chief justice, pertaining to the post-retiral benefits to former high court judges.
It also felt that the actions of the officials did not meet the standard of criminal or civil contempt.
According to the Supreme Court, the issuance of bailable warrants by the high court against officials, including the chief secretary, who was not even summoned in the first place, “further indicates the attempt by the high court to unduly pressurise the government”.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: ‘Left matrimonial home on her own’ — Allahabad HC order refusing maintenance to estranged wife