Courts Should Not Summon Appearance Of Officials At The “Drop Of The Hat”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently highlighted that Courts should practise restraint while summoning government officials while hearing contempt cases.“This Court has repeatedly held that while it is open to the High court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, it is not open to the Court to summon the appearance of the officials at the drop of...
The Supreme Court recently highlighted that Courts should practise restraint while summoning government officials while hearing contempt cases.
“This Court has repeatedly held that while it is open to the High court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, it is not open to the Court to summon the appearance of the officials at the drop of the hat”, A Bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed.
The appeal was against a Allahabad High Court order in a pending writ petition directing the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow as well as the Inspector General of Registration, at Allahabad, Camp Office, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The Respondents (petitioners before the High Court) were seeking regularisation of their services.
When the plea reached the High Court, it took note of a judgment dated October 5, 2017 pursuant to which a three-member committee was constituted. When the three-member committee’s report in 2018 was placed, the High Court was of the view that the State had violated the 2017 order. Therefore, the Judge directed the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary and the Inspector General of Registration.
This practise is not correct, the Apex Court ruled.
“If the High Court felt that the order dated 05.10.2017 had not been complied with, the course of action open was completely different”.
In fact, a contempt plea was already filed complaining of violation of the 2017 order, which came to be dismissed by another learned Judge and the special leave petition arising out of the said order was also dismissed by the Top Court, the Bench further noted.
On these grounds, the Bench set aside that portion of the High Court order which directed the summoning of government officials while allowing the latter to decide the plea on merits.
“Therefore, we are of the considered view that portion of the impugned order by which the appearance of the officials has been ordered by the High Court should be set aside. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order where the Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance and the Inspector General of Registration have been summoned, is set aside.”
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the appellants, the State of UP and Advocate Mohit Kumar Gupta appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: State of UP vs Prahalad Singh | SLP(C) No. 21197/2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176
Contempt of Courts Act 1971- While it is open to the High court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, it is not open to the Court to summon the appearance of the officials at the drop of the hat