'Judges Must Not Behave Like Emperors': Supreme Court Strongly Condemns High Courts' Practice Of Summoning Of Public Officers Unnecessarily

The Supreme Court reiterated that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. 

Summoning of officers frequently is not appreciable at all and is liable to be condemned in the strongest words, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta and observed while disapproving the practice in certain High Courts to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. 

The bench observed thus while considering an appeal against Allahabad High Court judgment as it noticed that the High Court summoned the Secretary, Medical Health in the Court. [In this case, the writ petitioner had challenged an order transferring him]

"17. A practice has developed in certain High Courts to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. The line of separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive is sought to be crossed by summoning the officers and in a way pressurizing them to pass an order as per the whims and fancies of the Court.", the bench said.

The bench added that the public officers of the Executive are also performing their duties as the third limbs of the governance.

"18....The actions or decisions by the officers are not to benefit them, but as a custodian of public funds and in the interest of administration, some decisions are bound to be taken. It is always open to the High Court to set aside the decision which does not meet the test of judicial review but summoning of officers frequently is not appreciable at all. The same is liable to be condemned in the strongest words.", the Court added.

Referring to a decision in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass , the court observed that judges must know their limits. It said: 

"19..... They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. It is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. "

The court also observed that summoning of the officer is against the public interest as many important tasks entrusted to him gets delayed, creating extra burden on the officer or delaying the decisions awaiting his opinion. While setting aside the High Court order (after considering the case on merits), the bench observed:

"20. Thus, we feel, it is time to reiterate that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. The dignity and majesty of the Court is not enhanced when an officer is called to court. Respect to the court has to be commanded and not demanded and the same is not enhanced by calling public officers. The presence of public officer comes at the cost of other official engagement demanding their attention. Sometimes, the officers even have to travel long  distance. Therefore, summoning of the officer is against the public interest as many important tasks entrusted to him gets delayed, creating extra burden on the officer or delaying the decisions awaiting his opinion. The Court proceedings also take time, as there is no mechanism of fixed time hearing in Courts as of now. The Courts have the power of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in Court. If any particular issue arises for consideration before the Court and the Advocate representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised to write such doubt in the order and give time to the State or its officers to respond."

"The frequent, causal and lackadaisical summoning of high officials by the Court cannot be appreciated," the same bench had, in April 2021, observed in an order passed in the SLP filed by the UP Government against a summoning order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a contempt case. In an order passed in the year 2019,  similar observation was made by the same bench.

Recently the bench headed by Justice Kaul quashed an order of the Jharkhand High Court in an anticipatory bail case, seeking the personal presence of State officials for the "betterment of the criminal justice system."

Case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma [CA 2320 OF 2021]
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta
Citation: LL 2021 SC 289

Click here to Read/Download Judgment