Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL No. – 23-24 of 2024
Decided on: 3rd January 2024
CORAM: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud CJI., J B Pardiwala J., Manoj Misra J.
Facts of the Case
By judgement dated April 4, 2023, the High Court instructed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to announce, among other things, regulations suggested by the Chief Justice of the High Court related to ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High Court’ by the next day of hearing by the next date of hearing. It further ordered certain officials of the Uttar Pradesh government to appear in court on the following day if the order was not followed. The State filed an application with the High Court seeking a recall of the Order of April 4, 2023, citing legal impediments to complying with the High Court’s orders.
The High Court ruled on April 29, 2023, that the recall motion was ‘contemptuous’ and launched criminal contempt proceedings against different officers of the Uttar Pradesh government. The officials present in court were taken into prison, including the Secretary (Finance) and Special Secretary (Finance), and bailable warrants were issued against the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance). The challenged decisions are the result of a writ case filed in 2011 before the High Court by the respondent, the Allahabad Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges. The petition requested, among other things, an increase in the amount provided to retired High Court justices for domestic help and other expenditures.
Following that, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt proceedings against the State, and the Government issued a government order adjusting post-retiral payments for former High Court justices. The Association preferred an application to alter the writ petition’s prayers and sought equivalence with the Andhra Pradesh government’s new programme. The High Court granted the request and asked the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to appear in person with the papers to “speed up the process.” Then it issued the contested orders, which the State challenged in the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions
The main aim was at clarifying the provisions of Article 229(2) of the Indian Constitution. The preamble of the Rules so proposed by the High Court Chief Justice borrows its mandate from Article 229 of the Constitution. Article 229(2) states that the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, or any other judge or official approved by the Chief Justice, may impose the terms of employment of officers and servants of the High Court.
The Court, on the other hand, emphasised the proviso to Article 229(2), which specifically indicates the necessity of Governor’s consent for laws related to wages, allowances, leave, or pensions of such High Court officers and staff.
Issues
The key issues are:
(i) Whether the High Court had the authority to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former High Court Judges;
(ii) Whether the High Court could use criminal contempt against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on the grounds that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and
(iii) The broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct the presence of witnesses.
Courts analysis and decision
In the preceding context, the Court stated, “The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former High Court Judges.” The Chief Justice lacked the authority required by Article 229 of the Constitution to create the regulations. Furthermore, the High Court, operating on the judicial side, lacks the authority to direct the Government to establish administrative regulations requested by it.”
It also stated that the High Court could not use the power of criminal contempt against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh because the application for recall of the First Impugned Order was ‘contemptuous’ and the officials’ actions did not meet the standard of both ‘criminal contempt’ and ‘civil contempt’. “The High Court’s practice of summoning government officials on a regular basis to exert pressure on the government under the threat of contempt is unconstitutional.” Summoning officials repeatedly, rather than relying on the law officers representing the government or the government’s affidavit representations, goes counter to the arrangement intended by the Constitution,” the Court ruled.
“The SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings framed by this Court in Paragraph 45 of this Judgement must be followed by all courts across the country,” the Court concluded. After considering the SOP outlined above, the High Courts must consider creating regulations to govern the attendance of Government personnel in court.” As a result, the Supreme Court issued the SOP, dismissed the appeals, and reversed the impugned rulings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
