A five-page draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) note prepared by the Centre wants the judiciary to treat government officials summoned to court “more congenially”, especially in contempt cases.
The draft SOP begins innocuously about courts summoning government officials for the slightest reason, but then veers off to suggest a series of sweeping proposals concerning the conduct of proceedings in government-related cases.
The note suggests that the role of a court should stop at prescribing the “broad composition” of the committee it wants to be constituted to independently examine a case under consideration. The government should then be given the freedom to identify and name the chairperson/members for the committee. In the Adani-Hindenburg case recently, the Supreme Court had insisted on naming each member of the expert committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge, Justice A.M. Sapre.
Yet again, the draft SOP note cautions against courts wearing down the government with any hard and fast timelines in cases concerning public policy issues. Compliance of judicial orders involving “complex policy matters” would require time, approval from Ministers, consultations on wider implications, it explained.
The note said government officials ought to be summoned only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. The government said courts should practice “necessary restraint”.
It even suggested that judges should refrain from making “comments on the dress/physical appearance/educational and social background” of government officials appearing before them.
“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,” the note reasoned.
Contempt proceedings
The draft SOP said it was against the principle of natural justice to have judges hearing contempt proceedings relating to their own orders. In such cases, the persons charged with contempt should be free to ask for trial by another judge. Besides, in contempt cases, it has to be seen if the judicial order was enforceable at all. Courts ought not to insist on a particular outcome, especially on issues exclusively in the executive domain.
The government said the draft SOP intends to “create a more congenial and conducive environment between the judiciary and the government. It aims to improve the overall quality of compliance of judicial orders by the government, minimise the scope for contempt of court and save time and resources for both the court and the government”.
However, the draft SOP clearly suggests that issues exclusively within the executive domain should be left to the government. It “cautioned” courts from settling a point of law in rem or laying down the law before pronouncing the decision on the individual representation.
