Centre’s Request to Frame SOP Sparks Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court has taken a significant step in addressing the summoning of government officials by courts, with a particular focus on their attire. In response to the Centre’s proposal to create a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the Supreme Court has decided to set out clear modalities for government officers’ appearances in courtrooms across the country. This comes in light of a plea from the Allahabad High Court regarding the summoning of two government officials for alleged contempt of court.
Court’s Scope and Chief Justice’s Remarks1
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, presiding over a three-judge bench, emphasised that the Supreme Court will define the specifics of government officers’ courtroom appearances, including their dress. The Court reviewed the draft SOP submitted by the Centre, which raised certain points that garnered attention.
Points of Discussion
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that the Court’s focus was likely on two points from the draft SOP: the acceptance of review petitions by higher courts before initiating contempt proceedings and the handling of contempt orders from lower courts during the review process. Mehta acknowledged that these matters should not be part of the SOP, as they pertain to the discretion of individual courts.
Balancing Government Officials’ Presence
Mehta, recognizing his role as an officer of the court, shared his favourable views on the draft SOP’s recommendations. Expanding on this, he introduced additional insights, and highlighted a scenario where it is often recommended for the chief secretary to be present during proceedings. He also pointed out that while the presence of the chief secretary is imperative when called upon by a constitutional or any other court, there might be instances where a joint secretary, who possesses direct expertise on the matter, could provide more effective assistance.
Mehta underlined the practical concern that the chief secretary’s absence, even for a single day, could potentially disrupt the ongoing operations of various government functions.
Attire of Government Officials
A discussion arose regarding the attire of government officials during court appearances. Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to a viral video showing a government official in casual attire during a High Court proceeding. Solicitor General Mehta and the Chief Justice agreed that appropriate attire should be considered, although suits might not be practical due to the climate. A balance needs to be struck to ensure professionalism without discomfort.
Finalising the Guidelines
The Court acknowledged the need for bifurcation between pending and adjudicated cases when summoning government officers. The draft SOP’s recommendations were considered, including the emphasis on restraint when calling officials to court, especially in cases of public interest litigation, writ proceedings, and contempt cases. The Court also stressed the importance of not initiating contempt proceedings unless the action in question was wilful.
Balancing Act
The Supreme Court’s efforts to establish guidelines for summoning government officers reflect the desire to uphold judicial decorum while recognizing the practicalities of government officials’ roles. By focusing on appropriate attire, invoking personal presence only when necessary, and differentiating between pending and adjudicated cases, the Court aims to strike a balance between justice and the responsibilities of government officials.
The Supreme Court’s move to establish these guidelines showcases its commitment to ensuring a structured and respectful legal process in cases involving government officers.
