The Supreme Court of India recently introduced certain guidelines, setting them as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), outlining the proper protocols for summoning government officials. The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, emphasized the need for adherence to the SOP by all High Courts. The guidelines stress the importance of avoiding arbitrary summoning of officials and cautioned against humiliating remarks or unnecessary comments on their attire.

The court acknowledged that the personal appearance of officials might be necessary in certain cases, particularly in summary proceedings. However, it emphasized that summoning officials could be avoided if the issues at hand could be addressed through affidavits. The court clarified that officials should not be summoned merely due to a difference in opinion from the court unless there is a suspicion of facts being suppressed.

Regarding comments on the attire of officials, the Supreme Court underscored that such remarks should be avoided unless there is a violation of the dress code specific to their office. The court also directed against making government officers stand throughout proceedings unless absolutely necessary.

In an effort to ensure fair treatment, the Supreme Court mandated that advance notice be given before summoning officials to allow for adequate preparation. The court recommended video conferences as the preferred method for officials' appearances.

These guidelines were issued in response to a plea filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging orders from the Allahabad High Court to summon two senior government officers, with the additional directive of arrest.

The Supreme Court, in setting aside the High Court's orders, expressed the view that frequent summoning of government officials contradicts the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court has further instructed its registry to circulate the order among Registrars General of all High Courts for their awareness and implementation.

The set of guidelines serving as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) are applicable to all court proceedings involving the government, encompassing cases before the Supreme Court, High Courts, and other courts acting within their respective jurisdictions. The SOP is also pertinent to proceedings related to contempt of court.

Section 1: Personal Presence Pending Adjudication

1.1 Classification of Proceedings:

a. Evidence-Based Adjudication: Involving testimonies or relevant documents.

b. Summary Proceedings: Relying on affidavits, documents, or reports.

c. Non-adversarial Proceedings: Requiring officials for complex policy or technical matters.

1.2 Criteria for Physical Presence:

a. Affidavits and documents suffice in most cases.

b. Physical presence may be directed when information is intentionally withheld.

c. Avoid directing presence solely based on differences in stance.

Section 2: Procedure Prior to Directing Personal Presence

2.1 Exceptional cases may require in-person appearance, with video conferencing as the first option.

2.2 Notification through SMS/email/WhatsApp at least one day before the scheduled hearing.

2.3 Recording reasons for directing personal presence.

2.4 Advance notice for in-person appearance to enable adequate preparation.

Section 3: Procedure During Personal Presence

3.1 Designating specific time slots for matters requiring personal presence.

3.2 Officials need not stand throughout the hearing. 3.3 Avoiding oral remarks that may humiliate officials.

3.4 Refraining from comments on appearance, education, or social standing.

3.5 Fostering a professional environment; comments on dress avoided unless violating specified dress code.

Section 4: Time Period for Compliance with Judicial Orders by the Government

4.1 Acknowledging complexities in policy matters; reasonable timeframes considered.

4.2 Entertaining requests for revising specified timeframes.

Section 5: Personal Presence for Enforcement/Contempt of Court Proceedings

5.1 Exercising caution in contempt proceedings; fair process ensured.

5.2 Issuing notice before directing personal presence.

5.3 Carefully considering responses before deciding on actions.

5.4 Providing advance notice for in-person appearance; video conferencing as the first option.

5.5 Evaluating non-compliance considering procedural delays or technical reasons.

5.6 Granting extensions for compliance when difficulties arise.

Case: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.

Civil Appeal Nos 23-24 of 2024 Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8575-8576 of 2023.

Click to read/download judgment.