Supreme Court to lay down guidelines for summoning govt officers

The Supreme Court has confirmed its intention to establish protocols concerning the summoning of government officials to courts. This includes guidelines on appropriate attire for such occasions, responding to a request from the Central Government to establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). 

Previously, the Central Government presented a draft SOP to the Supreme Court bench, which is currently hearing a case involving the summoning of two government officials by the Allahabad High Court on charges of alleged contempt of court. 

“Our role will be to establish the protocols for official court appearances, including the dressing code,” stated Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, who presided over a three-judge bench. 

The Chief Justice noted that the court had reviewed the SOP and found certain points noteworthy. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted two points from the SOP that the court might be referring to. The first point recommended that, “Before initiating contempt proceedings, higher courts may consider a review petition on behalf of the government.” The second point suggested, “In cases where a review (or appeal petition, as Mehta clarified) has been admitted against a contempt order of a lower court, the lower court should acknowledge this and refrain from initiating any related contempt proceedings in the matter at hand.” 

Addressing the bench, which comprises Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, Mehta stated that these points cannot be included in the SOP. He conceded, “This is within the discretion of each court…how to exercise that power can never be the subject of an SOP… It simply can’t be done.” 

Mehta further stated, “I won’t insist on issues where the judiciary has correctly said how to exercise judicial review…that can never be part of our request for SOP.” 

Chief Justice Chandrachud responded, “We will clarify the position and establish some broad guidelines for summoning government officials to court. Considering the availability of video conferencing, there are other modalities to consider.” 

Mehta added, “I have other suggestions that I, as an officer of the court, believe are positive.” 

He went on to explain that sometimes the presence of the chief secretary is insisted upon. However, he suggested that a joint secretary dealing with the matter would be better positioned to assist. He further noted, “The chief secretary’s absence for a day could disrupt several other tasks.” 

“Ultimately, the Chief Secretary would be taking a briefing from the secretary of the concerned department,” Chief Justice Chandrachud added. 

Mehta agreed, noting that the presence of the chief secretary would necessitate the presence of several other officers to answer queries. He suggested, “It would be more efficient for the person handling the file to appear.” 

Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Justice Misra had made a “valuable suggestion”. He proposed a distinction between pending cases and those where judgement has been passed after adjudication. The Chief Justice explained, “There is no need to summon officers to court Court perhaps felt he should have worn a suit.” He added that, “Generally, in our climate, we do not wear suits.” 

He suggested that as long as an official doesn’t appear in jeans or a T-shirt, there shouldn’t be an issue. 

The Chief Justice observed that officers of the armed forces appear in civilian clothing when attending court for personal matters. He noted, “On the other hand, government counsel always appear in their official attire.”

Please, also have a look : No Immunity for dishonest public servants before 2014 corruption cases: Supreme court