2024 (1) TMI 174 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside order directing State to notify post-retiral benefits rules for former judges

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Versus Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.

The SC held that the HC exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice ... Separation of powers - exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction - practice of frequently summoning government officials to court - Seeking an increase in the allowance granted to former judges of the High Court for domestic help and other expenses. Whether the High Court had 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? - HELD THAT:- The High Court, acting on the judicial side, could not compel the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice in the purported exercise of his administrative powers. Policymaking by the government envisages various steps and the consideration of various factors, including local conditions, financial considerations, and approval from various departments. The High Court cannot use its judicial powers 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 and letters to the Central Government, indicate that this objection had been raised by them in the past. The legal position taken by the Government in the recall application was evidently based on their desire to avail their legal remedy and not to willfully disobey the First Impugned Order. The objections raised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with regard to legal obstacles in complying with the First Impugned Order were never adjudicated by the High Court. Instead, the High Court regarded the objection as an attempt to obstruct justice, without even a cursory attempt to provide reasons. Applying the standards delineated above, it is clear that the actions of the government of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute even ‘civil contempt’ let alone ‘criminal contempt’. The circumstances most definitely did not warrant the High Court acting in haste, by directing that the officials present before the court be taken into custody. This summary procedure, although, permitted under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked as a matter of routine and is reserved for only extraordinary circumstances. The invocation of criminal contempt and taking the government officials into custody was not warranted. Summoning of Government Officials before Courts - HELD THAT:- Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort. While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law officers, who represent the government and its officials before the courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings, prescribed. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court had 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.2. 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'.3. The broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct the presence of government officials before the court.Summary:I. The High Court did not have the power to direct the notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief JusticeThe High Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court related to 'Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High Court'. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice does not have the power under Article 229 of the Constitution to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former judges of the High Court. The reliance on Article 229 was misplaced as it pertains only to the service conditions of 'officers and servants' of the High Courts. The High Court, acting under Article 226, cannot usurp the functions of the executive and compel the executive to exercise its rule-making power in the manner directed by it. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction 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.II. Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an orderThe High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh for filing a recall application against its order. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the High Court's order could at most constitute civil contempt, not criminal contempt. The High Court failed to provide reasoning for how the purported non-compliance met the standard of criminal contempt. The actions of the government officials did not meet the threshold for either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt'. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to initiate contempt proceedings must be exercised with great circumspection and cannot be used to obstruct parties from availing legal remedies.III. Summoning of Government Officials before CourtsThe Supreme Court noted the conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The appearance of government officials before courts must not be reduced to a routine measure and should only be resorted to in limited circumstances. Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort and should rely on law officers representing the government or submissions on affidavit. The Supreme Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide courts on the personal appearance of government officials in court proceedings, emphasizing the need for consistency and restraint.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside both the Impugned Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023. The High Court is at liberty to hear the writ petition in view of the observations made in the judgment. The Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to the Registrar General of every High Court. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.