9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to browbeat the State Government to notify the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. As the Rules were promulgated by the Chief Justice without competence, at best, they amounted to inputs to the State Government. The State Government was free to constructively consider the desirability of the Rules within its own decision-making apparatus. Therefore, the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 by frequently summoning officers to expedite the consideration of the Rules and issuing directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date, under the threat of criminal contempt. Whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall was contemptuous ? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the State of Uttar Pradesh was availing its legitimate remedy of filing a recall application. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the application was filed in a bona fide manner. Not only had the Finance Department raised its concerns regarding the competence of the Chief Justice before the High Court but its previous conduct, including file notings of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A FOR THE PETITIONER : RUCHIRA GOEL JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents I. Factual Background ...................................................................................... 4 II. The High Court did not have the power to direct the notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice ......................................................... 14 III. Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order ................................. 18 IV. Summoning of Government Officials before Courts ............................ 21 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise from two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023. Impugned Orders The Impugned Orders have given rise to significant questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning government officials to court. 3. By its order dated 4 April 2023, First Impugned Order the High Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of copy of this order. (emphasis supplied) 7. Subsequently, contempt petitions were instituted before this Court for noncompliance with the Court s decision in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra). This Court directed all states to file affidavits detailing the steps taken to comply with the directions. By an Order dated 27 October 2015, reported as Justice V.S. Dave, President, the Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015 , this Court closed the contempt proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that it had already framed a scheme in accordance with the Court s directions. The Court further held that a slight variation from the yardstick in the Andhra Pradesh scheme is permissible keeping in mind the local conditions and directed that states that are paying less than the yardstick, shall consider upward revision at the appropriate stage and time . The court held: State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa, Mizoram, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, which lie at the heart of the present case, follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is pleased to frame the following rules for providing the domestic help to former Chief Justices and former Judges of the High Court. 6. Selection of Domestic Help: The former Chief Justice or former Judge may at her, or his discretion select a person to be engaged as a Domestic Help. 7. Contractual appointment: The engagement of a Domestic Help under Rule 6 shall be on a contractual basis and will be available until the former Chief Justice or former Judge is entitled to the benefit of the facility under Rule 5 and until the Domestic Help performs duties satisfactorily subject to the certification of the former ChiefJustice or former Judge. 8. Reimbursement: Upon engagement, the monthly remuneration payable to the Domestic Help shall be reimbursed by the High Court to the former Chief Justice or former Judge after completion of the month in each month. 9. Wages: The wages to be reimbursed by the High Court to the former Chief Justice or former Judge for the engagement of the Domestic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Rules were resolved by the High Court, the State Government was raising queries in a piecemeal manner to keep the matter pending for a long period. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the Rules involve an amendment to the existing scheme and would be examined by the State Government expeditiously. 14. On the next date, 23 March 2023, the High Court expressed its displeasure about the delay by the State Government in notifying the Rules and revising the post-retiral benefits granted to former judges of the High Court. The High Court stated that it is constrained to summon the Finance Secretary, Government of UP and all the associated Officers dealing with the file along with the Principal Secretary (Law), Government of UP to appear along with the records on the next date fixed. 15. On 4 April 2023, the High Court passed the First Impugned Order. As directed, the Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary, Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh were present. The High Court noted the submission by the Principal Secretary, Law that the matter was placed before the Finance Department on six occasions, but approval was not accorded. On the other hand, the Secretary, Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the Finance Department does not have objections with regard to the financial implications in according approval to the proposed Rules/Guidelines. 25. Having regard to the categorical stand of the Principal Secretary Law and Secretary Finance Department, the following directions are issued: 1. The Rules/Guidelines as proposed by the High Court shall be notified by amending/incorporating/superceeding the Government Order dated 3 July 2018, forthwith; 2. The Finance Department would accord approval within a week thereafter; 3. The notification of the Government Order and the approval, thereof, shall be placed on record on the date fixed; 4. In the event the order is not complied, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance and the officers present today shall appear on the date fixed. (emphasis supplied) 18. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a recall application before the High Court on 19 April 2023 seeking a recall of the First Impugned Order on the grounds that: a. The High Court did not have the power to pass the above directions; b. The rules do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution; c. The direction for the Rules to be notified and the Finance Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues have been raised with regard to the procedure to be adopted while notifying the Government Order or the issue of Article 229 of the Constitution. Affidavit does not clarify as to why the Government Order as proposed by the Law Department was not approved by the Finance Department till date. The approach of the officers of the Finance Department is writ large, that the proposal submitted by the High Court, would not be complied and in their overzealous approach and adamant attitude are opposing compliance of the writ court order without any valid basis. 32. In the circumstances, having regard to the averments made in the affidavit and the conduct of the officers suppressing material facts and misleading the Court, prima facie, have committed criminal contempt of the Court. (emphasis supplied) 20. The High Court directed that the officials present in the court, the Secretary (Finance) and the Special Secretary (Finance) be taken into custody and produced before the Court on the next day for framing of charges. Further, the Court issued bailable warrants against the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to ensure their presence before the Court on the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the High Court or any other Judge or officer authorized by the Chief Justice for the purpose. The proviso to the Article mandates that the rules made under Article 229(2) require the approval of the Governor of the State, in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. The provision reads as follows: 229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts. (1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings against the State of Uttar Pradesh noting that the state had already framed a scheme for post-retiral benefits. The Court held that slight variations from the scheme adopted in Andhra Pradesh were permissible and flexibility was contemplated in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) for states to frame their respective schemes. Further, the court directed that states where the allowances paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall consider the necessity of an upward revision of such allowances at the appropriate stage and time. 28. There is no iota of doubt that in the above judgements, this Court directed the state governments to frame schemes for post-retiral benefits. The above judgements of this Court did not grant the Chief Justices of High Courts, acting on the administrative side, the power to frame rules about post-retiral benefits for former judges that must mandatorily be notified by the State Governments. Further, the Court recognized the need for flexibility and granted state governments the leeway to duly account for local conditions. 29. Further, the High Court s conduct on the judicial side in the Impugned Orders was also erroneous. The High Court, acting under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; 32. The Act makes a clear distinction between two types of contempt. Wilful disobedience of a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court amounts to civil contempt . On the other hand, the threshold for criminal contempt is higher and more stringent. It involves scandalising or lowering the authority of any court; prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. 33. In the second Impugned Order, the High Court held that the actions of the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh constituted criminal contempt as there was no valid reason to not comply with the earlier Order. Even if the High Court s assessment is assumed to be correct, non-compliance with the First Impugned Order could at most, constitute civil contempt. The High Court failed to give an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been held by this Court, in Leila David v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337 can only be invoked in exceptional cases, such as instances where: 36. .after being given an opportunity to explain their conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly behavior, but they have gone even further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate language have been resorted to further denigrate and scandalize and overawe the Court. This is one of such cases where no leniency can be shown as the contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the Court as license for indulging in indecorous behavior and making scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary but those holding the highest positions in the country. No such situation prevailed in the present case. Therefore, the invocation of criminal contempt and taking the government officials into custody was not warranted. IV. Summoning of Government Officials before Courts 38. Before concluding, we must note the conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning officials of the Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repeatedly summoned government officials. The government was also directed to notify the Rules based on a no objection from the officials of the Finance Department purportedly made before the High Court, which is now contested by the state. Such situations can be avoided in cases where submissions on affidavit can be sought and the law officers of the Government are present in court, with instructions. The issuance of bailable warrants by the High Court against officials, including the Chief Secretary, who was not even summoned in the first place, further indicates the attempt by the High Court to unduly pressurise the government. 43. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Sharma, (2021) 7 SCC 806 frowned upon the frequent summoning of government officials at the drop of a hat . This Court held: 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. 18. The public officers of the Executive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by the Constitution. 45. Enriched by the valuable insights shared in discussions with my esteemed colleagues Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, we have framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically addressing the appearance of Government Officials before the courts. At its core, this SOP emphasizes the critical need for courts to exercise consistency and restraint. It aims to serve as a guiding framework, steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent summoning of government officials and promoting maturity in their functioning. The SOP is set out below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings This Standard Operating Procedure is applicable to all court proceedings involving the government in cases before the Supreme Court, High Courts and all other courts acting under their respective appellate and/or original jurisdiction or proceedings related to contempt of court. 1. Personal presence pending adjudication of a dispute 1.1 Based on the nature of the evidence taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in advance to the official. This would enable the official to come prepared and render due assistance to the court for proper adjudication of the matter for which they have been summoned. 3. Procedure during the personal presence of government officials: In instances where the court directs the personal presence of an official or a party, the following procedures are recommended: 3.1 Scheduled Time Slot: 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. 3.2 The conduct of officials: Government officials participating in the proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing. Standing should be required only when the official is responding to or making statements in court. 3.3 During the course of proceedings, oral remarks with the potential to humiliate the official should be avoided. 3.4 The court must refrain from making comments on the physical appearance, educational background, or social standing of the official appearing before it. 3.5 Courts must cultivate an environment of respect and professionalism. Comments on the dress of the official appearing before the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication for an extension or stay before the issuing court or the relevant appellate/higher court. 46. In a nutshell, the conclusions reached in this Judgement are as follows: a. The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral 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. b. The power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall of the First Impugned Order was contemptuous . The actions of the officials do not meet the standard of both criminal contempt and civil contempt . c. The conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning government officials to exert pressure on the government, under the threat of contempt, is impermissible. Summoning officials repeatedly, instead of relying on the law officers representing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
