The Union government, in its five-page draft of guidelines, suggests that the judiciary treat government officials summoned to courts “more congenially”, particularly in contempt cases.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to lay down a “broad” set of guidelines based on the Centre’s draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on the judicial conduct in government-oriented cases, but pointed out that certain points “read as if the Centre wants to dictate the exercise of judicial review by courts”.
“We’ve seen the SOP, some parts of the SOP deal with how judicial review should be exercised,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said told Socilitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre.
Mehta denied any intention of the government to modify the courts’ powers of judicial review.
The Union government prepared a five-page draft of guidelines suggesting the judiciary treat government officials summoned to courts “more congenially”, particularly in contempt cases.
The bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of the draft SOP but observed that some of them cannot be acted upon.
It also said that there must be different sets of procedures to deal with contempt proceedings arising out of non-compliance with final judgements and the interim orders passed in pending cases.
"We will lay down some guidelines for summoning of government officers. There must be a bifurcation of matters pending and the ones in which adjudication is complete. For pending (cases), summoning officers is not needed but once adjudication is complete then contempt steps in,” the bench noted.
CJI Chandrachud said the court will lay down “the yardsticks, the restraints that should be exercised in summoning officers”. The top court was hearing a case involving the summoning of two government officials by the high court for contempt.
The Centre’s draft SOP suggested that appearances should be allowed through video conferencing, refraining courts from making comments on the physical appearance and educational background of government officials and a reasonable time frame should be given for compliance with judicial orders.
"Courts should practice necessary restraint while summoning the government officials during the hearing of cases (writs, PILs etc.) including contempt cases.
"In exceptional circumstances wherein there is no option other than the concerned government official to be present in person in the court, due notice for in-person appearance, giving sufficient time for such appearance, must be served in advance to such official," it reads.
The draft guidelines also state that comments on "dress/physical appearance/educational and social background" of the government official appearing before the court should be avoided.
"Government officials are not officers of the court and there should be no objection to their appearing in a decent work dress unless such appearance is unprofessional or unbecoming of her/his position," the SOP said.
The SOP if approved by the Supreme Court would be applicable to all proceedings in government-related matters before the Supreme Court, high courts and all other courts that are hearing matters under their respective appellate and/or original jurisdiction (writ petitions, PIL etc.) or proceedings related to contempt of court.