Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down detailed guidelines in the form of Standard Operating Procedure for personal appearance of government officials before the courts, saying that it is impermissible to summon officers to exert pressure on the government under the threat of contempt.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that courts should only require personal appearance in exceptional circumstances. In such cases, the courts must provide a video conferencing link to the officers 24 hours prior as the first option, the bench said.
"The court should not direct the presence of an official solely because the official's stance in the affidavit differs from the court's view. In such cases, if the matter can be resolved based on existing records, it should be decided on merits accordingly," the bench said.
The courts must refrain from making oral humiliating remarks against government officers on their appearance, dress, educational qualifications etc, the bench added. Among others, the bench said the officers need not stand throughout the proceedings.
The court frowned upon the Allahabad High Court's conduct in frequently summoning government officials to exert pressure on the government under threat of contempt, saying it is impermissible.
“Summoning officials repeatedly instead of relying on law officers representing the government runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution,” the bench said.
The bench said all High Courts should consider framing rules regarding the appearance of government officials in court, after taking into account its SOP.
The apex court set aside the Allahabad High Court's contempt action taken in April, 2023 against top Uttar Pradesh government officials for non-compliance with its directions to provide domestic help and other facilities for retired judges.
The bench said the High Court did not have the power to direct the state government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retirement benefits for former Judges of the High Court.
"The Chief Justice did not have the competence to frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it on the administrative side," the bench said.
In June last year, the apex court stayed the Allahabad High Court's order by which Uttar Pradesh's then Finance Secretary S M A Rizvi and Special Secretary (Finance) Sarayu Prasad Mishra were taken into custody for failing to comply with its order to provide certain post-retirement benefits for judges.