In a move aimed at upholding the principles of dignity, impartiality and fairness, the Supreme Court has given its nod to the implementation of a groundbreaking “Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)” regarding the appearance of government officials in court proceedings. The centre, through the Solicitor General of India, had proposed the SOP draft, seeking to reshape the way courts interact with government officials during legal proceedings. The centre claims the SOP to be beneficial for fostering a congenial and conducive environment between the judiciary and the government, and further improving the overall quality of compliance with judicial orders by the government, which would minimize the scope of contempt of court.
According to the SOP, government officials shouldn’t be called until necessary, and if they are, they must receive advance notice of the summons and be given the option to appear in court virtually. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra consented to lay down SOP with respect to the formation of “broad yardsticks” on the issue of summoning government officials to the court. The Court said: “We will lay down some guidelines for summoning of government officials. There must be 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 relationship between the government and the judiciary has been a topic of constant scrutiny, with tensions often arising over the roles, powers and responsibilities of each institution. The proposed SOP reflects a recognition of this delicate balance, aiming to establish a clearer framework for summoning government officials while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a functioning government during legal proceedings. The heart of the proposed SOP lies in its emphasis on restraint. Rather than routinely summoning government officials to appear in person during court proceedings, the draft suggests that this action be reserved for “exceptional cases”.
The CJI expressed his worry that some sections in the SOP outline how judicial review should be exercised. The Solicitor General of India, speaking on behalf of the centre, refuted any desire to alter the Court’s judicial authority. He said the centre is not imposing any guideline; it is up to the discretionary power of the Court. The SOP suggests that the apex court should first consider the review of an order against government officials before starting contempt proceedings against them. According to him, the draft focuses on how senior government officials, such as the chief secretaries, are being called before courts for the most insignificant reasons.
Under the new proposed SOP, judges would be required to refer to government officials involved in court cases by describing their “broad composition” rather than explicitly naming individual officials. This approach acknowledges the importance of focusing on the roles and responsibilities of the officials within the governmental framework rather than attaching undue attention to their personal identities. It had additionally advised the Court against requiring precise standards in cases involving matters of public policy. Compliance with judicial orders involving “complex policy matters” would require time, approval from ministers, and consultations on wider consequences. Furthermore, the draft SOP indicated that it was against the natural justice concept for courts to consider contempt cases involving their own orders. The accused of contempt should have the option to have a new judge hear their case in certain circumstances. In addition, it was necessary to determine if the court order was even enforceable in contempt cases. Courts shouldn’t demand a certain result, particularly when it comes to matters that only concern the executive branch.
Another significant aspect of the proposed SOP is the call for judges to refrain from making “personal comments” on matters such as dress, physical appearance, educational background and social standing of government officials during court proceedings. This directive aims to promote a professional environment within the courtroom, where discussions remain centered on the legal merits of the case rather than diverting attention to irrelevant and potentially demeaning observations on the government officials. The Solicitor General here referred to past instances where government officers are insulted for not being appropriately dressed despite wearing a decent formal shirt and pants and said: “There are some orders where only the Chief Secretary is summoned. It is not a matter of ego, but the Joint Secretary who is handling the matter can also come. It is always more effective if the person dealing with the file comes.”
The CJI, who is leading the bench considering the SOP, reiterated the importance of upholding fairness and impartiality within the judicial system. The SOP intends to ensure that government officials receive equal treatment during court proceedings, regardless of their individual attributes. By focusing on the broad composition and refraining from personal comments, the proposed guidelines contribute to fostering an atmosphere of respect and objectivity within the courtroom.
Meanwhile, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madhu Jain, Saket Court, Delhi, while criticizing the practice of summoning, revealed that one government official has been summoned by the court more than 300 times. The officer’s plea is that the court summons him in every case arising in his police station instead of the investigating officer. The court said if such a practice is adopted and followed by all the courts then it will be “very difficult” for the police officers to maintain law and order in their respective areas as they will be spending the whole of their time in the courts. The district court said: “Not only is this practice to be deprecated but we must also stop this practice.”
The proposal by the Union government to introduce the draft SOP has sparked lively discussions among legal experts, policymakers, and citizens alike. The engagement around this issue showcases the vibrancy of India’s democratic landscape and the nation’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and governance. The Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of the Constitution continues to be central in this discourse, as it navigates the contours of its authority and its duty to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability. Recognizing the significance of stakeholder input, the Supreme Court intends to circulate the SOP to High Courts to gather feedback from various legal experts, practitioners, and concerned parties. This inclusive approach aims to address any potential concerns or suggestions that may arise before finalizing the guidelines. It also emphasizes the collaborative nature of refining the judicial process, ensuring that the interests of all parties involved are taken into consideration.
—By Ritika Gaur and India Legal Bureau