2024 Supreme(SC) 10

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 23-24 of 2024, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8575-8576 of 2023
Decided On : 03-01-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Power of High Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their Counsel from availing legal remedies.
(2) Chief Justice does not have power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and Judges of High Court.
(3) High Court cannot use its judicial powers to browbeat State Government to notify Rules proposed by Chief Justice.
(4) Appearance of government officials before courts must not be reduced to a routine measure in cases where government is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances – Use of power to summon presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize government, particularly, under threat of contempt.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 229 – Service conditions of officers and servants of High Court – Article 229(2) pertains only to service conditions of ‘officers and servants’ of High Courts and does not include Judges of High Court (both sitting and retired Judges) – Chief Justice does not have power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and Judges of High Court – Rules proposed by Chief Justice, in present case, do not fall within competence of Chief Justice under Article 229 – Merely because reference is made to a wrong provision of law while exercising power, that by itself does not vitiate exercise of power so long as power of authority can be traced to another source of law – However, High Court has not brought to fore any other source of law which empowers Chief Justice to frame binding rules for post-retiral benefits of former Judges of High Court. (Paras 25, 26 and 46)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – Contempt of court – High Court cannot use its judicial powers to browbeat State Government to notify Rules proposed by Chief Justice – High Court, acting on judicial side, could not compel State Government to notify Rules proposed by Chief Justice in purported exercise of his administrative powers – Policymaking by government envisages various steps and consideration of various factors, including local conditions, financial considerations, and approval from various departments – As Rules were promulgated by Chief Justice without competence, at best, they amounted to inputs to State Government – State Government was free to constructively consider desirability of Rules within its own decision-making apparatus – High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 by frequently summoning officers to expedite consideration of Rules and issuing directions to notify Rules by a fixed date, under threat of criminal contempt. (Paras 30 and 46)

(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 14 – Contempt of court – Civil contempt and criminal contempt – Threshold for ‘criminal contempt’ is higher and more stringent – It involves scandalising or lowering authority of any court – While initiating proceedings of contempt of court, court must act with great circumspection – It is only when there is a clear case of contemptuous conduct that alleged contemnor must be punished – Power of High Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their Counsel from availing legal remedies – In present case, State of Uttar Pradesh was availing its legitimate remedy of filing a recall application – Actions of Government of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute even ‘civil contempt’ let alone ‘criminal contempt’ – Circumstances most definitely did not warrant High Court acting in haste, by directing that officials present before court be taken into custody – This summary procedure, although, permitted under Section 14 of Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked as a matter of routine and is reserved for only extraordinary circumstances – Invocation of criminal contempt and taking government officials into custody was not warranted – Impugned Orders set aside. (Paras 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46 and 47)

(D) Practice and Procedure – Summoning of Government Officials before Courts – Appearance of government officials before courts must not be reduced to a routine measure in cases where government is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances – Use of power to summon presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize government, particularly, under threat of contempt – Court must also refrain from relying on mere undertakings by government officials in court, without consent on affidavit or instructions to law officers such as Attorney General, Solicitor General, or Advocate Generals of States – Courts must refrain from summoning officials as first resort – While 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 functions of law officers contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system – Courts across country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly considering constitutional or professional mandate of law officers, who represent Government and its officials before courts – Constantly summoning officials of government instead of relying on law officers representing government, runs contrary to scheme envisaged by Constitution – SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings framed by this Court in Para 45 of this Judgement must be followed by all courts across the country – All High Courts shall consider framing rules to regulate appearance of Government officials in court, after taking into account the SOP which has been formulated here. (Paras 38, 39, 44, 45 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Following broad points of law arise for our consideration:

(i) Whether High Court had power to direct State Government to notify Rules proposed by Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of High Court;

(ii) Whether power of criminal contempt could be invoked by High Court against officials of Government of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that application for recall was ‘contemptuous’;

(iii) Broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct presence of government officials before court.

Findings of Court:

Both Impugned Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 are set aside and appeals are disposed of. High Court is at liberty to hear writ petition, in view of observations made in this judgment.

Result : Appeals disposed of.