Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To HCs On Summoning Govt Officials, Says Personal Presence Should Be Exceptional

To address the issue of "arbitrary and frequent" summoning of government officials by the Courts,  the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 2) issued guidelines to High Courts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on summoning of government officials and directed that all High Courts should follow it. All High Courts should consider framing rules to regulate the appeareance of officials after taking into account the SOP

The Highlights of the SOP are :

• Personal presence may be required in evidence-based adjudication, summary proceedings and non-adversarial proceedings(where the Court requires assistance on complex policy issues). Other than these cases, if the issues can be addressed through affidavits and other documents, personal presence may not be necessary and should not be directed as a routine measure.
• The presence of a government official may be directed, inter alia, in cases where the Court is prima facie satisfied that specific information is not being provided or is intentionally withheld or if the correct position is suppressed or misrepresented.
• The court should not direct the presence of the official solely because the stand of the official in the affidavit differs from the Court's view. In such cases, if the matter can be resolved through existing records, the issue be decided on merits accordingly.
• In exceptional cases where the in-person appearance of the official is called for by the Court, the Court should allow as a first option the officer to appear before it through video conferencing.
• The invitational link for VC appearance must be sent by the Registry of the Court to the given mobile number and email ID of the concerned official by SMS, WhatsApp, email at least one day before the scheduled hearing.
• When the personal presence of an official is directed, the reason should be recorded as to why such presence is required.
• Due notice for in-person appearance, giving reason, must be served in advance to the official, enabling the official to come prepared.
• The Court should to the extent possible designate a specific time slot for addressing matters where the personal presence of an official or a party is mandated.
• The Govt officials who participate in the proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing. Standing should be required only when the official is making statements or responding to the Court.
• During the course of the hearing, oral remarks which have the potential to humiliate the official should be avoided.
• The Court must refrain from commenting on the physical appearance, educational background or the social standing of the official appearing before it.
• The Courts must cultivate an environment of respect and professionalism. 
• Comments on the dress of the official appearing should be avoided unless there is a violation of the specified dress code applicable to their office.
• Courts must consider the complexities of decision-making before specifying timelines for compliance of orders. A reasonable time frame must be accommodated.  
•  If an order is passed and the government seeks a revision of the specified time frame,  the Court may entertain such request and devise a reasonable time frame for the compliance of judicial orders.
• The Court should exercise caution and restraint while initiating contempt proceedings. 
• In a proceeding issued for contempt for wilful disobedience of order, the Court should ordinarily issue a notice to the alleged contemnor seeking an explanation for actions, instead of immediately seeking personal presence.
• Following the issuance of the notice, the Court should carefully consider the response of the alleged condemner and should decide the future course of action.
• If the original order lacks a specific timeline, the Court should consider granting an extension.
• If the order specifies a compliance deadline and difficulties arise, the Court should permit the contemnor to submit an application for extension.

The Court passed these directions while setting aside the direction issued by the Allahabad High Court to take into custody two Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh Government for alleged non-compliance of directions regarding the facilities to retired judges.

Last year, the Supreme Court had stayed the HC order, which took into custody the Special Secretary (Finance) and Secretary (Finance) of the Uttar Pradesh government over the non-compliance of directions to provide domestic help and other facilities for retired judges and directed their immediate release

During the course of the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested the CJI to lay down guidelines on summoning government officials and submitted a draft SOP. The CJI agreed to frame the SOP. The draft SOP, among other things, suggested that before initiating contempt proceedings, the plea for review on behalf of the government must be considered by higher courts, if it is pointed out that certain points of law were not considered during adjudication.

Case Title : State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.16613/2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Click here to read the judgment