Government Proposes Draft SOP on Appearance of Officials in Courts: Key Highlights
The Union government has recently proposed a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to the Supreme Court concerning the appearance of government officials in court proceedings. This initiative is aimed at fostering a harmonious relationship between the judiciary and the government. Central to the draft SOP is the recommendation that judges should be judicious in summoning government officials to appear in person. Specifically, the SOP states
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!“The in-person appearance of government officials should be called for only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine.”
Another significant aspect of the SOP is the emphasis on virtual appearances. The Centre underscores that routine appearances of government officials should be avoided, advocating for restraint during hearings, especially in contempt cases. The SOP suggestss
“If officials are summoned, advanced notice must be given, allowing ample time for their appearance.” Moreover, it emphasizes that the “first option must be given to the officer to appear virtually.”
Addressing the issue of dress code and appearance, the document clarifies
“Since government officials are not officers of the court, there should be no objection to them appearing in their work dress as long as the same is not unprofessional.”
Furthermore, it advises courts to
“Refrain from commenting on the dress/physical appearance/educational and social background of the government official appearing in Court.”
The draft SOP also touches upon matters that fall within the executive’s domain. In situations where the court confronts issues that are exclusively within the executive’s purview, the SOP suggests that such matters should be referred back to the executive for further action. It states
“In matters where the lead Ministry/Department, directly related to the case and representing the Government in court, has submitted a response, courts should not insist on the presence of government officials or the submission of a separate affidavit from the Ministry/Department listed as pro forma.”
Contempt proceedings, a contentious issue, are also addressed in the SOP. It provides that
“No contempt should be initiated in case of statements made in court by government counsels that is contrary to the stand of the Government affirmed through its affidavit/written statement or reply submitted before the court.”
Additionally, it recommends that a judge should not adjudicate contempt proceedings relating to their own orders.
The overarching objective of the SOP, as stated, is
“To create a more congenial and conducive environment between Judiciary and Government with a view to improve overall quality of compliance of Judicial orders by the Government, thereby minimizing scope for contempt of court.”
The SOP’s guidelines are intended to be applicable across the board, covering the Supreme Court, High Courts, and all court proceedings that involve government matters. This move by the Centre, especially in the wake of a case from Uttar Pradesh where the High court directed the arrest of two senior officials for contempt, is perceived as a progressive step. It aims to ensure a more collaborative relationship between the two pillars of democracy, leading to smoother court proceedings and improved compliance with judicial directives.
