A relieving intervention

Civil servants in general, and IAS and IPS officers in particular, would welcome the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the matter of personal appearance of officers being desired by the honourable courts in contempt matters or to assist the court. The specific cause of action were two orders of the division bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad relating to the exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction and the practice of frequently summoning government officials to court.

It had transpired that in the matter relating to post-retirement benefits for the honourable Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, the high court had issued certain directions. The Finance Department of the UP Government had not complied with them and had instead questioned them. The high court had directed that officials of the Finance Department present in court be taken into custody and had issued bailable warrants to ensure the presence of the Chief Secretary and the additional Chief Secretary in court on the next day.

The honourable Supreme Court stated that the invocation of criminal contempt and taking the government official into custody was not warranted. It concluded that the conduct of the high court in frequently summoning officers to exert pressure on the government under the threat of contempt is impermissible.

The honourable Supreme Court also framed SOPs on the personal appearance of government officials in court proceedings. It was of the view that, in most cases, instead of calling the officers, the issue could be addressed through affidavits and other documents. Only if it is felt that specific information required by the court is being deliberately withheld by the concerned officer, then there is cause for calling for the personal appearance of the officer concerned.

It has been my experience that going to court when summoned often leads to spending the entire day in traveling and in the process. The Supreme Court has said that, as the first option, the court should allow the officer to appear before it through video conferencing. This would definitely save a lot of valuable time. The court further said that, as far as possible, a specific timeslot should be kept for addressing matters where the personal appearance of an officer is mandated. It also said that government officials participating in the proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing. These are also very welcome directions as often officers have to wait the entire day for the case to be heard, and most often they are not even provided a chair to sit on. In a lighter vein, I recall that a senior officer of the secondary education department of UP was called by the court so often that he actually set up a table and chair near the court and disposed of official work as he would have to wait for his case to be heard for the best part of the day.

Recently, there have been instances when officers have faced comments by the court on their dress or demeanour. This has been most unfortunate and has demoralised senior officers. The Supreme Court has viewed this tendency with concern and said that during the course of the proceedings, no oral remarks with the intention of humiliating the officials will be passed. The Supreme Court has further added that the courts shall refrain from making comments on the physical appearance, educational background, or social standing of the official appearing before it. It advised the court to cultivate an environment of respect and professionalism. The officers and the members of the judiciary are respected representatives of the executive and the judicial arm of a democratic government, respectively, and I feel it is essential that there is mutual respect between them. I personally remember the numerous occasions when I had to travel from Lucknow to Allahabad to be physically present in court, and this often amounted to a loss of more than one day. Further, had it not been for the consideration shown by a very amiable joint registrar protocol of the High Court, one would have had to spend the entire day standing inside or just outside the court.

The orders of the court must be complied with, and for this, the senior officers of the government should be held accountable. Very often, non-compliance or not taking action on time is a result of negligence by the junior officers of the concerned department. I used to handle this by maintaining a register of all court orders in my office, even when I was Chief Secretary, and one official was specifically made responsible for monitoring time-bound actions. I personally reviewed this register once every fortnight. This kind of practice should be followed by all senior officers. Sometimes, I discovered collusion between the person who received the orders from the court and the lower-level officers in the secretariat. The officers would not bring the matter before their seniors deliberately for obvious reasons and would wait for a notice of contempt from the court. The idea was that the moment a contempt notice came, the officers concerned hurriedly tried to comply, leaving no time for a serious examination of the order or consideration of a review application or appeal. The answer to this lies once again in very detailed monitoring by senior officers and fixing responsibility on junior officers if they have deliberately avoided putting up the matter for necessary action.

It is also true, as the honourable Supreme Court has observed, that there is a process involved at the government level in complying with court orders. Wherever there is a financial involvement, the concurrence of the finance department is essential, and often higher orders up to the level of the Chief Minister have to be taken. The courts must give reasonable time for compliance with their orders. Also, as the honourable Supreme Court has pointed out, the court should not take it adversely if the officer comes back to the court with a request for a review or modification of the order. The point that should be understood is that hardly any officer would wilfully disobey the orders of the court. The Supreme Court has put this in perspective by observing that the concerned court should evaluate instances of non-compliance, taking into account procedural delays or technical reasons. It should give an appropriate extension if required to facilitate compliance.

These SOPs issued by the Supreme Court will go a long way in allowing the officers to carry out their work with integrity and without any sense of undue fear. The officers must also show respect for court orders and monitor them personally. A relationship of mutual respect between senior executive officers of the government and the judiciary will certainly make for more effective governance.

The writer is an ex-Chief Secretary, Govt of Uttar Pradesh. Views expressed are personal