Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The central government has proposed a standard operating procedure (SOP) for appearance of government officials in contempt and other court proceedings, stating that the courts should call the officers only in exceptional circumstances and with advance notice.

The SOP has been introduced with a view to improve overall quality of compliance of judicial orders by the government, thereby minimising scope for contempt of court, government said.

Appearance of officials

"This would contribute significantly to saving of time and resources of both the court and the government by allowing for appearance of the concerned official through video conference," it said.

The SOP said that the courts should refrain from making comments upon the dress of the officials, unless their appearance is unprofessional or unbecoming of the positions.

The SOP cited an instance of hearing before the Patna High Court wherein officer in question was Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development in the state. He was dressed in a formal white shirt and trousers for the hearing but was reprimanded for appearing in court in "inappropriate attire". The judge further asked if he had attended the civil service training institute in Mussoorie and if they had not told him “how to appear in court”.
In points of action, the SOP said as per directions of the Supreme Court, the in-person appearance of  officials should be called for only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. Courts should practice necessary restrain while summoning the government officials during the hearing of cases.

It also underscored comments on the dress/physical appearance/educational and social background of the government official appearing before of the Court should be refrained. 

"Government officials are not officers of the court and there should be no objection to their appearing in a decent work dress unless such appearance is unprofessional or unbecoming of her/his position," it said. 

Appearance via VC & pro forma cases

"In exceptional circumstances wherein there is no option other than the concerned government official to be present in person in the court, due notice for in-person appearance, giving sufficient time for such appearance, must be served in advance to such official," it said.

Howsoever, in exceptional cases too wherein in-person appearance of government official is still called for, the court should allow as a first option, to appear before it through VC (video conference). The invitation link of VC for appearance and viewing, as the case may be, can be sent by the registry to the given mobile no(s)/e-mail id(s) by SMS/email/WhatsApp of the concerned official at least one day before the scheduled hearing, it added.

The SOP also suggested that the appearance of government official in cases as pro forma party should be avoided.

"Cases under consideration of the court wherein the lead Ministry/Department directly connected to the matter and representing on behalf of government in the court has filed a common reply/representation, the appearance of government officials or filing of a separate affidavit from Ministry/Department listed as pro forma should not be insisted upon by the courts. As such, the same should apply in case of contempt proceedings too wherein in-person appearance notices are issued to all government respondents, including pro forma parties," it said.

Abide by principles of natural justice 

So far as contempt proceedings were concerned, it said judge should not, ideally, sit on contempt proceedings relating to their own orders.

"It is an established principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest or in other words be a judge in their own cause (based on legal maxim “nemo judex in sua causa”). Further, as per Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in case of a person charged with contempt in Supreme Court or a High Court ; such person can request to have the charge against him tried by some other judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed," it said.

Cases involving public policy

With regard to cases involving policy matters, it said in case of matters being heard by the court involving issues that are within the exclusive domain of executive and the same can be resolved only through an executive/administration-related decision, then the court instead of taking up such matter for adjudication and/or call for appearance of government official related therewith, may refer the same to the executive for further necessary action.

The SOP also said in case of matters before court involving public policy having wider implication not only for the central government but for the States and other stakeholders as well, it may be recommended to exercise caution to settle the point of law in rem before pronouncing the decision on the individual representation. 

Reasonable Time Frame

It also said the court should allow for reasonable timeframe. In case the timeframe is requested to be revised on behalf of the government, the court may allow it for compliance of such judicial orders and allow for hearing of such requests of modification, it added.

Broad Guidelines only

It also suggested, "In case of matters before court that involve setting up of a committee for further examination of the matter under consideration, the court may prescribe only the broad composition/domains of members/chairperson of such committee instead of naming individual members and leave the identification/selection/appointment of individual members/chairperson with the executive/administration".