Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday ordered two secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh finance department, who were present before the court, to be taken into custody for committing criminal contempt of the court. 

The two officers - Shahid Manzar Abbas Rizvi, Secretary (Finance) and Sarayu Prasad Mishra, Special Secretary (Finance) had appeared in person for hearing in a plea related to facilities for retired high court judges.

The high court, however, opined that the officer had suppressed material facts and misled the court and therefore, held them prima facie liable for contempt of court and ordered their arrest.

Moreover, while issuing bailable warrants against the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and Dr. Prashant Trivedi, Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) U.P. Lucknow as well, the division bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar posted the matter on Thursday. i.e. today for framing of charge against the contemnors. 

However, the IAS officers moved the Apex Court immediately against the order of the high court.

Today, when the matter was urgently mentioned in Supreme Court before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, the division bench while issuing notice in their plea, also ordered forthwith release of the two officers.

Before the top court, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the state, told the bench that an "unprecedented order" had been passed by the high court.

The high court had passed the order in question while dealing with a plea that had been filed in 2011 by the Association of Retired Supreme Court And High Court Judges seeking domestic help and other facilities to the former chief justices and former judges of the high court.

On April 4, 2023, the high court had directed the state government to execute/notify Rules/Guidelines approved by the Chief Justice for providing benefits including domestic help to retired judges. 

However, on Wednesday, court noted that the officers had failed to comply with the order of April 4.

Through an affidavit filed before the high court, Shahid Manzar Abbas Rizvi, Secretary (Finance) UP had expressed that the officer of the state had reservations in complying with the order of the high court of April 4.

In the second paragraph of the affidavit of the officer, it was stated that the ‘State of U.P. has always been keen to act in the best interest of Hon’ble the retired Chief Justices/Hon’ble Retired Judges and their spouses so far as providing of post-retiral benefits within the constitutional frame is concerned and the State Government treats the Hon’ble Retired Chief Justices and Retired Judges of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, as its golden past.’

The affidavit also stated that ‘in the matter of fiscal policy and the involvement of expenditure from the public Ex-chequer, the State Government is constitutionally obligated also to act in the best interest of millions of its populations living in extremely socially, educationally and economically backward conditions as also in extreme penury.’

The main contention raised by the officers was that the state government could not notify the concerned proposed rules as they did not fall within the scope and ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution which essentially pertains to the service conditions of the officers and servants of the high court.

However, the high court observed that the officers had "raised the issue of Article 229 of the Constitution unnecessarily questioning the competence of Chief Justice of the high court. 

Court further highlighted that in reply to a specific query, the two secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh finance department informed that pursuant to the order dated 4 April, Chief Secretary had convened a meeting of the officers on 13 April 2023 where the Advocate General had opined to comply the order of April 4. 

Further, the court noted that the office of the Law Department on 6 April 2023, had also forwarded the proposed Government Order/amendment to confer benefits upon the retired judges for approval of the finance department and that the said proposal was not to frame Rules under Article 229 of the Constitution.

"These facts have been suppressed," the high court noted while holding the officers of the state prima facie guilty of contempt of court. 

Case Title: Association Of Retired Supreme Court And H.C.Judges And Another v. Union Of India And Others