Repeated summons to officials for contempt contrary to Constitution’s scheme: SC
A bench of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra laid down the dos and don’ts for judges
The Supreme Court on Wednesday called summoning government officials repeatedly for contempt contrary to the Constitution’s scheme and issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) about summons for their presence in courts.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra laid down the dos and don’ts for judges. It said officials should not be summoned “arbitrarily” and as a matter of routine. The bench said they should be issued only in cases where the presence of officials is necessary for examining evidence, assistance in complex issues of policy, and if any fact has been suppressed.
The order came on the Union government’s appeal against an April 2023 Allahabad high court order directing the state finance secretary and another official to be taken into custody for non-compliance to an order related to post-retirement benefits to retired high court judges.
The SOP asks judges to refrain from commenting on dress or making observations that may “humiliate” officials while they are summoned for contempt or otherwise. It requires judges to summon officials only in “exceptional” cases and to rely on statements of law officers and affidavits.
The bench said the SOP has been formulated for consistency and to prevent frequent summoning while directing the high courts to frame guidelines taking note of the procedure. It set aside the Allahabad high court’s order saying it was not right to order the arrest of the officials for contempt. The Supreme Court said the action of officials did not amount to civil or criminal contempt. It added the high court chief justice did not have the power to enforce the rules framed for the benefit of retired judges in a judicial proceeding.
The Supreme Court reserved orders on the Union government’s appeal in the matter in August. Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta earlier circulated a draft SOP requesting the court to lay down uniform rules to ensure the presence of officials only in cases where compliance with orders is lacking. He added it should not be a matter of routine as it affects administrative functioning.
The court’s SOP accepted provisions from the draft and requires advance notice for appearance so that officials can prepare while giving them the first option to appear through videoconferencing.
Mehta submitted that a dress code should also be fixed as officers generally appear in shirts and trousers and still face the ire of judges. He referred to insults in courts for inappropriate dressing despite decent clothing. “Comments on the dress or physical appearance or educational and social background of the government official appearing before of the Court should be refrained,” said the draft. It added appearance of officers in a “decent work dress” should be permitted.
The draft said such a protocol would create a more “congenial and conducive” environment between judiciary and government, improve the quality of compliance with judicial orders, and minimize the scope for contempt of court. It added an SOP would save time and resources for both the court and the government. The draft said the work of the government gets affected when officers are summoned to courts.