Balancing Judicial Authority and Constitutional Norms
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has issued a set of guidelines to High Courts regarding the summoning of government officials, a move that addresses concerns over the arbitrary and frequent summoning of these officials. This development marks a significant step in the Indian judiciary’s approach to handling cases involving government functionaries.
Also read-Supreme Court Seeks Lok Sabha Secretary’s Response On Mahua Moitra’s Expulsion Plea (lawchakra.in)
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, formulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) aimed at ensuring that the personal appearance of government officials in courts is kept to a minimum and is only sought under exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity of officials’ presence in certain situations, especially for evidence in summary proceedings. However, it was emphasized that their summoning should not occur if the matter can be resolved through affidavits.
The Court stated,
“The personal appearance of the officer should not be insisted upon, if the needful can be done by the officer through an affidavit or otherwise.”
This statement underscores the Court’s intent to reduce unnecessary appearances of officials in court, thereby streamlining the legal process.
Addressing the issue of summoning officials due to differing views, the Court clarified,
“An official cannot be summoned only because his or her view is different from the view of the court.”
This directive aims to prevent the misuse of judicial authority to intimidate or harass officials for their professional opinions.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted situations where the presence of officials is crucial, particularly in cases of suppression of facts.
“The personal presence of officials may be required if there is suppression of facts,”
the Court noted, indicating the seriousness with which such instances are to be treated.
In a significant remark on the treatment of government officials in court, the Supreme Court directed that courts must refrain from commenting on the attire of officials,
“unless there is a violation of the dress code of their own office.”
This directive is a reminder of the respect and decorum expected in judicial proceedings.
Also read-CJI DY Chandrachud And Few SC Judges To Retire In 2024 (lawchakra.in)
These guidelines emerged while the Supreme Court was disposing of a plea by the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging orders by the Allahabad High Court that summoned two senior government officers. In a notable instance, the High Court had ordered the arrest of two senior IAS officers, a decision that was later overturned by the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the frequent summoning of government officials, stating that it runs
“contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.”
The Court emphasized the importance of respecting the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of the Constitution. It observed,
“The High Court cannot direct the State Government to enact rules on a particular subject, by a writ of mandamus or otherwise.”
Representing the Union government were Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj. Their involvement highlights the case’s significance at the national level.
This decision by the Supreme Court is a pivotal moment in Indian judicial history. It not only provides clear guidelines on the summoning of government officials but also reinforces the constitutional principles of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers. By limiting unnecessary appearances of government officials in court, the ruling aims to enhance the efficiency of the legal process and uphold the dignity of public servants.
Also read-Supreme Court Overturns Disqualification Of Police Constable Candidate Over Minor Date Of Birth Error (lawchakra.in)
