Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents I.

Factual Background ...................................................................................... 4 II.

The High Court did not have the power to direct the notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice ......................................................... 14 III.

Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order ................................. 18 IV.

Summoning of Government Officials before Courts ............................ 21

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023.2 The Impugned Orders have given rise to significant questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning government officials to court.

3. By its order dated 4 April 2023,3 the High Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High Court’ by the next date of hearing. The High Court further directed certain officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to be present before the court on the next date if the order was not complied with.

4. The State of Uttar Pradesh moved an application before the High Court to seek a recall of the Order dated 4 April 2023 highlighting legal obstacles in complying with the directions of the High Court. By its order dated 19 April 2023,4 the High Court held that the recall application was ‘contemptuous’ and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against various officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The officials present in the court, including the Secretary (Finance) and Special Secretary (Finance) were taken into custody and bailable warrants were issued against the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance).

1 “High Court”

2 “Impugned Orders”

3 “First Impugned Order”

4 “Second Impugned Order”

I.

Factual Background

5. The Impugned Orders arise from a writ petition instituted in 2011 before the High Court by the first respondent, the Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad. The petition inter alia sought an increase in the allowance granted to former judges of the High Court for domestic help and other expenses.

6. While the petition was pending before the High Court, a three-judge bench of this Court in P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India,5 decided a batch of cases pertaining inter alia to the post-retiral benefits payable to former judges of the High Courts. In its judgement dated 31 March 2014, this Court appreciated the scheme formulated by the State of Andhra Pradesh and recommended that other States also formulate similar schemes for post-retiral benefits to former judges of the High Courts, preferably within six months from the Judgement. The Court held:

“34. While appreciating the steps taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and trust that the States who have not so far framed such scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Subsequently, contempt petitions were instituted before this Court for non- compliance with the Court’s decision in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra). This Court directed all states to file affidavits detailing the steps taken to comply with the 5 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2002 directions. By an Order dated 27 October 2015, reported as Justice V.S. Dave, President, the As