Supreme Court Sets Standard Operating Procedure on Personal Appearance of Government Officials; Bars High Court Chief Justices from Framing Post-Retirement Benefit Rules.
Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 23-24 of 2024
Decided on: 3rd January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Facts of the Case
On April 4, 2023, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to notify rules regarding domestic help for former Chief Justices and Judges of the Allahabad High Court. The government sought a recall of this order, citing legal obstacles. On April 29, 2023, the High Court deemed the recall application as contemptuous, initiating criminal contempt proceedings against government officials. Some officials were taken into custody, and warrants were issued for others. The dispute originated from a 2011 petition by the Association of Retired Judges seeking increased allowances. The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the state, and the government revised post-retirement benefits. The Association sought parity with Andhra Pradesh’s scheme, leading to further court orders. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court possessed the authority to instruct the State Government to promulgate Rules recommended by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former High Court Judges;
- Whether the High Court could invoke the power of criminal contempt against Uttar Pradesh government officials based on the contention that the application for recall was deemed ‘contemptuous’; and
- Establishing the overarching principles that should govern courts when directing the appearance of government officials in court.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court has established a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) concerning the appearance of Government Officials in court proceedings. The three-Judge Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasized that summoning government officials should not be wielded as a tool to pressure the government, particularly under the threat of contempt. The SOP, developed through collaborative discussions, underscores the need for courts to exercise consistency and restraint, guiding them away from arbitrarily summoning government officials and promoting a mature approach.
The Court highlighted that summoning officials should not be the first resort, and while the actions of public officials are subject to judicial review, frequent summoning without just cause is impermissible. In a specific case, the Court ruled that the High Court lacked the authority to direct the State Government to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former High Court Judges. The Chief Justice was deemed incompetent to frame rules under Article 229 of the Constitution, and the High Court, acting judicially, couldn’t direct the government to frame rules administratively.
The Court observed that the power of criminal contempt could not be invoked against Uttar Pradesh government officials based on the alleged ‘contemptuous’ nature of the recall application. It clarified that the officials’ conduct did not meet the standards of both criminal and civil contempt. The Court criticized the High Court’s practice of frequently summoning government officials to pressure the government under the threat of contempt, deeming it impermissible and contrary to the constitutional scheme.
The Court concluded by stating that the SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings, as outlined in the judgment, must be adhered to by all courts nationwide. It urged all High Courts to consider framing rules regulating the appearance of government officials in court, taking into account the formulated SOP. The Apex Court disposed of the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad