LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court; whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the State Government on the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence of government officials before the court.

Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court; whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the State Government on the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence of government officials before the court.


* Author

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 211 : 2024 INSC 4

Case Details

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

v.

Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court

Judges at Allahabad & Ors.

(Civil Appeal Nos 23-24 of 2024)

03 January 2024

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, CJI, J B Pardiwala

and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State

Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining

to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court; whether

the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court

against officials of the State Government on the ground that the

application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the

broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence

of government officials before the court.

Headnotes

Constitution of India – Arts 226, 229 – Summoning of

government officials – Invocation of criminal contempt –

Writ petition by the first respondent-Association seeking

an increase in the allowance granted to former judges of

the High Court for domestic help and other expenses –

Issuance of direction by the High Court directing the State

Government to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief

Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to

Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad

High Court’ by the next date of hearing – Also directed the

certain officials to be present before the court on the next

date if the order was not complied with – Application filed

by the State seeking recall of the aforesaid Order – High

Court held that the recall application was ‘contemptuous’

and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against various

officials of the Government – Also the officials present in

the court, including the Secretary (Finance) and Special

Secretary (Finance) taken into custody and bailable warrants 

212 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

issued against Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary

(Finance) – Correctness:

Held: 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 Judges of the High

Court – Power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by

the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar

Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall of the First

Impugned Order was ‘contemptuous’ – Conduct of the High

Court in frequently summoning government officials to exert

pressure on the government, under the threat of contempt,

is impermissible – Issuance of bailable warrants by the High

Court against officials, who was not even summoned in the

first place, indicates the attempt by the High Court to unduly

pressurise the government – Thus, both the Impugned Orders

set aside – Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on personal

appearance of government officials in court proceedings framed

by this Court. [Paras 46, 47]

Constitution of India – Art. 229(2) – High Court directing the

State Government to notify the Rules proposed by the Chief

Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges

of the High Court – Correctness:

Held: 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 Judges of the High Court – Chief

Justice did not have the competence to frame the said rules u/Art.

229 – High Court, acting u/Art. 226, cannot usurp the functions

of the executive and compel the executive to exercise its rulemaking power in the manner directed by it – Compelling the State

Government to mandatorily notify the Rules by the next date of

hearing, in the First Impugned Order, virtually amounted to the High

Court issuing a writ of mandamus to notify the Rules proposed

by the Chief Justice – Such directions by the High Court are

impermissible and contrary to the separation of powers envisaged

by the Constitution – High Court, acting on the judicial side, could

not compel the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the

Chief Justice in the purported exercise of his administrative powers

– Thus, the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction u/Art. 226 by

frequently summoning officers to expedite the consideration of the

Rules and issuing directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date,

under the threat of criminal contempt. [Paras 25, 26, 28-30, 46a]

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 213

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Criminal Contempt – Initiation

of – Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh availing legal

remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order – Criminal

contempt invoked by the High Court against the officials on

the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’

– Correctness:

Held: Power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by the

High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh

on the ground that the application for recall of the first impugned

order was ‘contemptuous’ – High Court acted in haste by invoking

criminal contempt and taking the government officials into custody

and the same was not warranted – Actions of the officials did not

meet the standard of both ‘criminal contempt’ and ‘civil contempt’

– In the second Impugned Order, the High Court held that the

actions of the officials of the State Government constituted

criminal contempt as there was no “valid reason” to not comply

with the earlier Order wherein the High Court directed the State

Government to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice

of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief

Justices and Former Judges of the High Court’ by the next date

of hearing – Even if the High Court’s assessment is assumed to

be correct, non-compliance with the first impugned order could

at most, constitute civil contempt – High Court failed to give any

reasoning for how the purported non-compliance with the first

impugned order was of the nature to meet the standard of criminal

contempt – However, even the standard for civil contempt was not

met – While initiating proceedings of contempt of court, the court

must act with great circumspection – It is only when there is a

clear case of contemptuous conduct that the alleged contemnor

must be punished – Power of the High Courts to initiate contempt

proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their counsel

from availing legal remedies. [Paras 33-36, 46 b]

Summons – Summoning of Government Officials before

Courts – Broad guidelines for the courts:

Held: Appearance of government officials before courts must not

be reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government

is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances –

Conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning government

officials to exert pressure on the government, under the threat

of contempt, is impermissible – Summoning officials repeatedly,

instead of relying on the law officers representing the government 

214 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

or the submissions of the government on affidavit, runs contrary

to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution – Courts must be

cognizant of the role of law officers before summoning the physical

presence of government officials – Law officers act as the primary

point of contact between the courts and the government – Instead

of adjudicating on the legal position taken by the State Government

on affidavit or hearing the Additional Advocate General present

in the court, the High Court repeatedly summoned government

officials – Government was also directed to notify the Rules – Such

situations can be avoided where submissions on affidavit can be

sought and the law officers of the Government are present in court,

with instructions – Courts must refrain from summoning officials as

the first resort – Thus, Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) framed

specifically addressing the appearance of Government Officials

before the courts. [Para 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46c]

Practice and procedure – Personal Appearance of Government

Officials in Court Proceedings – Framing of Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP):

Held: SOP on personal appearance of government officials in court

proceedings emphasizes the critical need for courts to exercise

consistency and restraint – It aims to serve as a guiding framework,

steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent summoning

of government officials and promoting maturity in their functioning

– SOP framed to be followed by all courts across the country – All

High Courts to consider framing rules to regulate the appearance

of Government officials in court, after taking into account the SOP

formulated. [Paras 45, 46d]

Constitution of India – Arts 76 and 165 – Law officers-Attorney

General for India and Advocate General for the State – Role of:

Held: U/Art. 76, the Attorney General is appointed by the President

and serves in an advisory capacity, providing legal counsel to the

Union Government – Similarly, u/Art. 165, the Advocate General

is appointed by the Governor of each state – Several other law

officers also represent the Union and the states including the

Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General, and Additional

Advocates General for the States – They inter alia obtain instructions

from the various departments of the government and represent

the government before the courts – Courts must be cognizant of

the role of law officers before summoning the physical presence

of government officials – Law officers act as the primary point of

contact between the courts and the government – They not only 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 215

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

represent the government as an institution but also represent the

various departments and officials that comprise the government –

Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public

officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to

a fair and balanced judicial system – Courts across the country

must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly

considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law

officers, who represent the government and its officials before the

courts. [Paras 40, 41, 44].

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 2 – Civil contempt and

criminal Contempt – Distinction:

Held: ‘Wilful disobedience’ of a judgment, decree, direction, order,

writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given

to a court amounts to ‘civil contempt’ – Criminal contempt involves

‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering’ the authority of any court; prejudicing or

interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing

the administration of justice. [Para 32]

List of Citations and Other References

P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 521/2002; Justice V.S. Dave, President, the

Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and

High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others Contempt

Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015; Leila David v.

State of Maharashtra [2009] 15 SCR 317:(2009) 10 SCC

337; Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly v. Abdul Majid Rather [1994]

3 SCR 396:(1994) 4 SCC 34; State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Manoj Kumar Sharma (2021) 7 SCC 806 – referred to.

List of Acts

Constitution of India; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Keywords

Separation of powers; Criminal contempt jurisdiction; Summoning

government officials to court; recall application; Allowance granted

to former judges of the High Court for domestic help; Post retiral

benefits to former judges of the High Courts; Writ of mandamus;

Policymaking; Summoning; Civil Contempt; Criminal Contempt;

Law officers; Judicial review; Unwarranted remarks; Standard

Operating Procedure.

216 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and

Appearances

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.23-24 of 2024.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2023 and 19.04.2023 in

WC No.38595 of 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances:

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Sharan Dev

Singh Thakur, A.A.G., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Thakur, Adit J.

Shah, Mustafa Sajjad, Ms. Keerti Jaya, Prem Prakash, Ms. Deepali

Nanda, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,

Vatsal Joshi, Shlok Chandra, Akshit Pradhan, Raghav Sharma,

Arvind Kumar Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Sunita Sharma,

Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Advs. for

the appearing parties.

Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Table of Contents

I. Factual Background .............................................................4

II. The High Court did not have the power to direct the

notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief

Justice..................................................................................15

III. Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a

party for availing legal remedies and raising a

legal challenge to an order................................................19

IV. Summoning of Government Officials before Courts...... 22

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from two orders of the Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1

 dated 4 April 2023 and

19 April 2023.2

 The Impugned Orders have given rise to significant

1 “High Court”

2 “Impugned Orders”

* Ed Note: Pagination as per original Judgment.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 217

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal

contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning

government officials to court.

3. By its order dated 4 April 2023,3 the High Court directed the

Government of Uttar Pradesh to inter alia notify rules proposed by

the Chief Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to

Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High

Court’ by the next date of hearing. The High Court further directed

certain officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to be present

before the court on the next date if the order was not complied with.

4. The State of Uttar Pradesh moved an application before the High

Court to seek a recall of the Order dated 4 April 2023 highlighting

legal obstacles in complying with the directions of the High Court.

By its order dated 19 April 2023,4

 the High Court held that the recall

application was ‘contemptuous’ and initiated criminal contempt

proceedings against various officials of the Government of Uttar

Pradesh. The officials present in the court, including the Secretary

(Finance) and Special Secretary (Finance) were taken into custody

and bailable warrants were issued against the Chief Secretary and

the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance).

I. Factual Background

5. The Impugned Orders arise from a writ petition instituted in 2011

before the High Court by the first respondent, the Association of

Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad. The

petition inter alia sought an increase in the allowance granted to

former judges of the High Court for domestic help and other expenses.

6. While the petition was pending before the High Court, a three-judge

bench of this Court in P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India,

5

decided a batch of cases pertaining inter alia to the post-retiral benefits

payable to former judges of the High Courts. In its judgement dated

31 March 2014, this Court appreciated the scheme formulated by

the State of Andhra Pradesh and recommended that other States

also formulate similar schemes for post-retiral benefits to former

3 “First Impugned Order”

4 “Second Impugned Order”

5 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2002

218 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

judges of the High Courts, preferably within six months from the

Judgement. The Court held:

“34. While appreciating the steps taken by the Government

of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already

formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and

trust that the States who have not so far framed such

scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local

conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and

retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as

possible preferably within a period of six months from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Subsequently, contempt petitions were instituted before this Court

for non-compliance with the Court’s decision in P Ramakrishnan

Raju (supra). This Court directed all states to file affidavits detailing

the steps taken to comply with the directions. By an Order dated

27 October 2015, reported as Justice V.S. Dave, President, the

Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts

vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others6

, this Court closed the contempt

proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that it had

already framed a scheme in accordance with the Court’s directions.

The Court further held that a slight variation from the yardstick in the

Andhra Pradesh scheme is permissible keeping in mind the local

conditions and directed that states that are paying less than the

yardstick, shall consider upward revision at the ‘appropriate stage

and time’. The court held:

“State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa,

Mizoram, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra

Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Telangana,

Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government

of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan,

Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat and Assam

The counter-affidavits/responses filed on behalf of each

of the aforesaid States indicate that a scheme has been

framed in accordance with the directions of the Court.

6 Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 219

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

While some of the States are paying more than what the

State of Andhra Pradesh (Adopted as the yardstick by

the Court) is paying by way of post-retirement allowances

some others are affording lesser amount(s). A little

variation from the yardstick can be understood in terms

of the flexibility contemplated in paragraphs 33 and 34

of the judgment which enable the States to frame their

respective schemes keeping in mind the local conditions.

As all the aforesaid States have framed their schemes,

we direct that the contempt proceedings insofar as these

states are concerned are closed.

We also direct that such of the states where the allowances

paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall

consider the necessity of an upward revision of such

allowances at the appropriate stage and time.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated

3 July 2018 and revised the post-retiral benefits for former judges

of the High Court. The domestic help allowance payable to retired

Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court was increased to Rs.

20,000/- (per month) for former Chief Justices and Rs.15,000/- (per

month) for former judges. Under this revised scheme, after the death

of a former Chief Justice or judge, the surviving spouse would be

entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- and Rs 7,500/- per month, respectively

for life. In 2022, the Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the

allowance to Rs. 50,000 for former Chief Justices and Rs. 45,000 for

former judges of the High Court. The first respondent preferred an

application to amend the prayers in the writ petition and sought parity

with the new scheme framed by the Andhra Pradesh government.

9. From the submissions of the parties and documents on the record,

it appears that sometime between 2019 and 2023, the Chief Justice

of the High Court proposed certain ‘Rules for providing Domestic

Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of Allahabad High

Court’.7

 The preamble to the Rules indicates that they were framed

by the Chief Justice in the exercise of his purported powers under

7 “Rules”

220 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Article 229 of the Constitution. The operative portion of the Rules,

which lie at the heart of the present case, follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of

the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad is pleased to frame the

following rules for providing the domestic help to former

Chief Justices and former Judges of the High Court.

“6. Selection of Domestic Help: The former Chief Justice

or former Judge may at her, or his discretion select a

person to be engaged as a Domestic Help.

7. Contractual appointment: The engagement of a

Domestic Help under Rule 6 shall be on a contractual basis

and will be available until the former Chief Justice or former

Judge is entitled to the benefit of the facility under Rule 5

and until the Domestic Help performs duties satisfactorily

subject to the certification of the former ChiefJustice or

former Judge.

8. Reimbursement: Upon engagement, the monthly

remuneration payable to the Domestic Help shall be

reimbursed by the High Court to the former Chief Justice or

former Judge after completion of the month in each month.

9. Wages: The wages to be reimbursed by the High

Court to the former Chief Justice or former Judge for the

engagement of the Domestic Help shall be equivalent to

the salary payable to a Class-IV employee of the High

Court in the grade of a peon or equivalent at the minimum

of the scale of pay inclusive of dearness allowance.

…”

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the above factual background, the High Court heard the writ

petition, summoned officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh

and passed various orders, including the two Impugned Orders. The

orders of the High Court passed before the Impugned Orders are

pertinent to understand the course of events before the High Court

while adjudicating the subject writ petition. 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 221

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

11. On 5 January 2023, the High Court allowed the first respondent’s

amendment application. The High Court directed the Principal

Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh to appear

in-person along with the records to “expedite the matter”. The High

Court held:

“On specific query, the learned Standing Counsel submits

that the scheme pursuant to the direction of the Supreme

Court is already there and the amount is being duly paid

by the State Government. However, the quantum of

amount towards the benefits being granted to the retired

Judges has not been revised since then. It is submitted

that the matter for revision, if any, is to be considered at

the highest level.

Be that as it may, in order to expedite the matter, before

any further order is passed, it would be appropriate that

the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of

Uttar Pradesh, shall appear along with the records and

apprise the Court of the stand of the State Government

in the matter.

Amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for

the petitioner to file an amended copy of the writ petition.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. When the writ petition was heard on 12 January 2023, the Principal

Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh was present

before the High Court. Further, it was submitted before the High

Court that the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice were pending

consideration, certain queries were made to the High Court and the

matter would be placed before the Cabinet for approval. The High

Court listed the case for 19 January 2023 and noted that “on the said

date, it is expected that the queries/clarification would be addressed

by the concerned committee.” (of the High Court).

13. On 19 January 2023, the counsel on behalf of the High Court

submitted that while the queries about the Rules were resolved

by the High Court, the State Government was raising queries in a

piecemeal manner to keep the matter pending for a long period.

The Additional Advocate General submitted that the Rules involve

an amendment to the existing scheme and would be examined by

the State Government expeditiously. 

222 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

14. On the next date, 23 March 2023, the High Court expressed its

displeasure about the delay by the State Government in notifying

the Rules and revising the post-retiral benefits granted to former

judges of the High Court. The High Court stated that it is “constrained

to summon the Finance Secretary, Government of UP and all the

associated Officers dealing with the file along with the Principal

Secretary (Law), Government of UP to appear along with the records

on the next date fixed.”

15. On 4 April 2023, the High Court passed the First Impugned Order.

As directed, the Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary,

Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh were present. The High Court

noted the submission by the Principal Secretary, Law that the matter

was placed before the Finance Department on six occasions, but

approval was not accorded. On the other hand, the Secretary,

Finance submitted that the Rules are beyond the competence of

the Chief Justice and do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of

the Constitution. The High Court observed that the objection with

regard to the competence of the Chief Justice was being raised for

the first time before the High Court. The High Court observed that:

“5. On perusal of the record with the assistance of the

learned Additional Advocate General, we do not find any

such objection which is being pressed before this Court.

In other words, the attitude of the officers of the Finance

Department is not only contemptuous, but at the same

time their stand/submission with regard to the competence

of the Hon’ble Chief Justice/ Article 229 is not reflected

from the record”

16. The High Court further recorded the submissions of the counsel for

the High Court that the Finance Department was attempting to stall

all the recommendations of the High Court in the recent past and that

the objections being raised by the Finance Department should have

been raised with the Law Department. The High Court observed:

“6. […] The audacity of the officers to raise the issue

of competence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, is not only

unbecoming of a civil servant, but at the same time

contemptuous. These objections are not available on

record, nor have it been brought to the notice of the Law

Department for legal advice. The Government Order

granting benefits to the retired Judges is already in place, 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 223

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

the proposal of the High Court merely seeks to incorporate

the same by amending, and/or, in supercession of the

earlier Government Order. Article 229 is unnecessarily

being ·pressed with the sole purpose of creating hindrance

when there is none.

17. The High Court observed that the Rules were pursuant to the

assurances given by the State of Uttar Pradesh in P Ramakrishnan

Raju (supra) and Justice V.S. Dave (supra). Further, the High Court

recorded that the Secretary, Finance conceded that the Rules could

be notified by way of a Government Order amending or superseding

the Government Order dated 3 July 2018. The High Court relied on

this purported ‘no objection’ and directed as follows:

“22. Secretary, Finance, fairly states that the Finance

Department would have no objection in the event the

Government Order to that effect is issued incorporating the

proposals submitted by the High Court in the form of Rules.

He further submits that the Finance Department does not

have objections with regard to the financial implications

in according approval to the proposed Rules/Guidelines.

25. Having regard to the categorical stand of the Principal

Secretary Law and Secretary Finance Department, the

following directions are issued:

1. The Rules/Guidelines as proposed by the High

Court shall be notified by amending/incorporating/

superceeding the Government Order dated 3 July

2018, forthwith;

2. The Finance Department would accord approval

within a week thereafter;

3. The notification of the Government Order and the

approval, thereof, shall be placed on record on the

date fixed;

4. In the event the order is not complied, Additional

Chief Secretary, Finance and the officers present

today shall appear on the date fixed.”

(emphasis supplied)

224 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

18. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a recall application before the High

Court on 19 April 2023 seeking a recall of the First Impugned Order

on the grounds that:

a. The High Court did not have the power to pass the above

directions;

b. The rules do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of the

Constitution;

c. The direction for the Rules to be notified and the Finance

Department to accord approval thereafter cannot be complied

with as the concurrence/advice of the Finance Department must

be taken before notifying the rules; and

d. Only the Parliament and the Union government are competent

to frame legislation/rules pertaining to post-retiral benefits for

former judges of the High Courts.

19. On 19 April 2023, the High Court passed the Second Impugned

Order. The High Court noted that the Additional Chief Secretary

(Finance) was not present, while the Secretary (Finance) and the

Special Secretary (Finance), who also appeared on the previous

date, were present. The High Court noted that on the date of the First

Impugned Order, the officials of the Finance Department categorically

stated that they have “no objection” if the Government Order issued

in 2018 is modified or amended. The recall application, according

to the High Court, constituted “ex-facie criminal contempt”, as it did

not indicate any valid reasons for non-compliance with the First

Impugned Order. The High Court held:

“30. [..] From perusal of the entire affidavit, it is not clear

as to which part of the order the officers intend to recall,

rather, the prayer made therein is to recall the entire order,

but no reason has been assigned as to how the order is

obnoxious on the whole. In other words, the affidavit that

has been filed today is false, misleading and averments,

therein, constitute ex-facie criminal contempt.

31. On specific query, it is informed by the· officers present

in the Court, on perusal of the record, that pursuant to

the order dated 4 April 2023, the Chief Secretary had 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 225

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

convened a meeting of the officers on 13 April 2023. The

Advocate General had opined to comply the order. Further,

the office of the Law Department on 6 April 2023, had

forwarded the proposed Government Order/amendment to

confer benefits upon the retired Judges for approval of the

Finance Department. The proposal is not to frame Rules

under Article 229 of the Constitution. These facts have

been suppressed. As per the stand of the officers, it is only

after approval by the Finance Department, submitted by

the Law Department, the matter would be placed before

the Cabinet. In this backdrop, affidavit is not only false but

also misleading as the affidavit does not disclose as to why

the proposal submitted by the Law Department was not

approved or the reason for not approving it, rather, frivolous

issues have been raised with regard to the procedure to

be adopted while notifying the Government Order or the

issue of Article 229 of the Constitution. Affidavit does not

clarify as to why the Government Order as proposed by

the Law Department was not approved by the Finance

Department till date. The approach of the officers of

the Finance Department is writ large, that the proposal

submitted by the High Court, would not be complied and

in their overzealous approach and adamant attitude are

opposing compliance of the writ court order without any

valid basis.

32. In the circumstances, having regard to the averments

made in the affidavit and the conduct of the officers

suppressing material facts and misleading the Court, prima

facie, have committed criminal contempt of the Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The High Court directed that the officials present in the court, the

Secretary (Finance) and the Special Secretary (Finance) be taken into

custody and produced before the Court on the next day for framing

of charges. Further, the Court issued bailable warrants against the

Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to

ensure their presence before the Court on the next day. 

226 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

21. The above Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 have been

challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by the present appeal. By

an interim order dated 20 April 2023, this Court stayed the operation

of the Impugned Orders and the officials of the Government of Uttar

Pradesh, who were taken into custody were directed to be released.

This Court directed:

“4 Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay” of the

operation of the orders of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4 April 2023 and

19 April 2023.

5 The officers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who

have been taken into custody, shall be released forthwith

6 The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall communicate

the order of this Court both telephonically and on the email

to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad for immediate compliance.”

22. We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General with Mr K.M.

Natraj, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union

of India, Mr Nishit Agrawal, counsel appearing on behalf of the

Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at

Allahabad and Ms Preetika Dwivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the administrative side.

23. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and

examined the record, the following broad points of law arise for our

consideration:

(i) Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State

Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice

pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High

Court;

(ii) Whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by

the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar

Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall was

‘contemptuous’; and

(iii) The broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct

the presence of government officials before the court. 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 227

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

II. The High Court did not have the power to direct the notification

of the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice

24. The preamble to the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice expressly

states that the Rules have been made pursuant to Article 229 of

the Constitution. Article 229 pertains to ‘officers and servants’ of the

High Courts. Article 229(2) provides that the conditions of service of

officers and servants of the High Court shall be as may be prescribed

by rules made by the Chief Justice of the High Court or any other

Judge or officer authorized by the Chief Justice for the purpose. The

proviso to the Article mandates that the rules made under Article

229(2) require the approval of the Governor of the State, in so far as

they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. The provision

reads as follows:

229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High

Courts. — (1) Appointments of officers and servants of

a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the

Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he

may direct:

Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require

that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person

not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to

any office connected with the Court save after consultation

with the State Public Service Commission.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the

Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers

and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be

prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court

or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised

by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:

Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far

as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions,

require the approval of the Governor of the State.

(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including

all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in

respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be 

228 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and

any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form

part of that Fund

(Emphasis Supplied)

25. Article 229(2) pertains only to the service conditions of ‘officers and

servants’ of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High

Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not

have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the

post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of

the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice,

in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief

Justice under Article 229. The reliance placed on the provision in

the preamble to the Rules is misplaced.

26. It is a settled principle of law that merely because reference is made

to a wrong provision of law while exercising power, that by itself

does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power of the

authority can be traced to another source of law. However, in the

Rules, the Impugned Orders or in its submissions before this Court,

the High Court has not brought to the fore any other source of law

which empowers the Chief Justice to frame binding rules for postretiral benefits of former judges of the High Court. In the Impugned

Orders, the High Court merely adverts to the judgements of this Court

in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) and Justice V.S. Dave (supra) to

justify the imposition of the Rules on the state government.

27. In our considered opinion, the reliance on the judgements of this

Court to justify the promulgation of Rules by the Chief Justice is based

on an erroneous and over-expansive interpretation of the directions

of this Court. As stated above, this Court in P Ramakrishnan Raju

(supra) appreciated the scheme in Andhra Pradesh and observed

that the Court “hopes and trusts that the States who have not so far

framed such scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local

conditions”. Further, in Justice V.S. Dave (supra), the Court closed

the contempt proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh noting

that the state had already framed a scheme for post-retiral benefits.

The Court held that slight variations from the scheme adopted in

Andhra Pradesh were permissible and flexibility was contemplated

in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) for states to frame their respective 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 229

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

schemes. Further, the court directed that “states where the allowances

paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall consider the

necessity of an upward revision of such allowances at the appropriate

stage and time.”

28. There is no iota of doubt that in the above judgements, this Court

directed the state governments to frame schemes for post-retiral

benefits. The above judgements of this Court did not grant the Chief

Justices of High Courts, acting on the administrative side, the power

to frame rules about post-retiral benefits for former judges that must

mandatorily be notified by the State Governments. Further, the Court

recognized the need for flexibility and granted state governments

the leeway to duly account for local conditions.

29. Further, the High Court’s conduct on the judicial side in the Impugned

Orders was also erroneous. The High Court, acting under Article 226

of the Constitution, cannot usurp the functions of the executive and

compel the executive to exercise its rule-making power in the manner

directed by it. Compelling the State Government to mandatorily notify

the Rules by the next date of hearing, in the First Impugned Order,

virtually amounted to the High Court issuing a writ of mandamus to

notify the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. Such directions by

the High Court are impermissible and contrary to the separation of

powers envisaged by the Constitution. The High Court cannot direct

the State Government to enact rules on a particular subject, by a

writ of mandamus or otherwise.

30. The High Court, acting on the judicial side, could not compel the

State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice in

the purported exercise of his administrative powers. Policymaking

by the government envisages various steps and the consideration of

various factors, including local conditions, financial considerations,

and approval from various departments. The High Court cannot use

its judicial powers to browbeat the State Government to notify the

Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. As the Rules were promulgated

by the Chief Justice without competence, at best, they amounted

to inputs to the State Government. The State Government was free

to constructively consider the desirability of the Rules within its

own decision-making apparatus. Therefore, the High Court acted

beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 by frequently summoning

officers to expedite the consideration of the Rules and issuing 

230 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date, under the threat of

criminal contempt.

III. Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing

legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order

31. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal

contempt’ in the following terms:

2. Definitions. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires, —

[...]

(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any

judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of

a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether

by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing

of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends

to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the

due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or

tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any

other manner;

32. The Act makes a clear distinction between two types of contempt.

‘Wilful disobedience’ of a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ,

or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a

court amounts to ‘civil contempt’. On the other hand, the threshold

for ‘criminal contempt’ is higher and more stringent. It involves

‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering’ the authority of any court; prejudicing or

interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing

the administration of justice.

33. In the second Impugned Order, the High Court held that the actions of

the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh constituted criminal

contempt as there was no “valid reason” to not comply with the

earlier Order. Even if the High Court’s assessment is assumed to be 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 231

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

correct, non-compliance with the First Impugned Order could at most,

constitute civil contempt. The High Court failed to give any reasoning

for how the purported non-compliance with the First Impugned Order

was of the nature to meet the standard of criminal contempt. The

High Court acted in haste by invoking criminal contempt against the

officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and directing for them

to be taken into custody.

34. In our considered opinion, however, even the standard for civil

contempt was not met in the facts of the present case. In a consistent

line of precedent, this Court has held that while initiating proceedings

of contempt of court, the court must act with great circumspection.

It is only when there is a clear case of contemptuous conduct that

the alleged contemnor must be punished. The power of the High

Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct

parties or their counsel from availing legal remedies.

35. In the present case, the State of Uttar Pradesh was availing its

legitimate remedy of filing a recall application. From a perusal of

the record, it appears that the application was filed in a bona fide

manner. Not only had the Finance Department raised its concerns

regarding the competence of the Chief Justice before the High Court

but its previous conduct, including file notings of the department

and letters to the Central Government, indicate that this objection

had been raised by them in the past. The legal position taken by

the Government in the recall application was evidently based on

their desire to avail their legal remedy and not to willfully disobey

the First Impugned Order.

36. The objections raised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with

regard to legal obstacles in complying with the First Impugned Order

were never adjudicated by the High Court. Instead, the High Court

regarded the objection as an attempt to obstruct justice, without

even a cursory attempt to provide reasons. Applying the standards

delineated above, it is clear that the actions of the government

of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute even ‘civil contempt’ let alone

‘criminal contempt’. The circumstances most definitely did not warrant

the High Court acting in haste, by directing that the officials present

before the court be taken into custody. This summary procedure,

although, permitted under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act

cannot be invoked as a matter of routine and is reserved for only

extraordinary circumstances. 

232 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

37. Such summary procedure, as has been held by this Court, in Leila

David v. State of Maharashtra,8 can only be invoked in exceptional

cases, such as instances where:

“36. ….after being given an opportunity to explain their

conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse

for their unseemly behavior, but they have gone even

further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from

repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain

new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate

language have been resorted to further denigrate and

scandalize and overawe the Court. This is one of such

cases where no leniency can be shown as the contemnors

have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the Court

as license for indulging in indecorous behavior and making

scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary but

those holding the highest positions in the country.”

No such situation prevailed in the present case. Therefore, the

invocation of criminal contempt and taking the government officials

into custody was not warranted.

IV. Summoning of Government Officials before Courts

38. Before concluding, we must note the conduct of the High Court in

frequently summoning officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The appearance of government officials before courts must not be

reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government is a

party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances. The use

of the power to summon the presence of government officials must

not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly,

under the threat of contempt.

39. The Court must also refrain from relying on mere undertakings

by government officials in court, without consent on affidavit or

instructions to law officers such as the Attorney General, Solicitor

General, or the Advocate Generals of the states.  Courts must be

cognizant of the role of law officers before summoning the physical

presence of government officials.

8 (2009) 10 SCC 337

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 233

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

40. Under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is appointed

by the President and serves in an advisory capacity, providing legal

counsel to the Union Government. The responsibilities of the Attorney

General include advising on legal matters, performing assigned

legal duties, and representing the government in various courts.

Similarly, under Article 165 of the Constitution, the Advocate General

is appointed by the Governor of each state. The Advocate General

provides legal advice to the state government, performs legal duties

as assigned, and discharges functions conferred by the Constitution.

Several other law officers also represent the Union and the states

including the Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General, and

Additional Advocates General for the states. They inter alia obtain

instructions from the various departments of the government and

represent the government before the courts.

41. Law officers act as the primary point of contact between the courts

and the government. They not only represent the government as an

institution but also represent the various departments and officials

that comprise the government. This Court in Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly

v. Abdul Majid Rather,

9 had occasion to observe that there was no

justification to direct the Additional Advocate General, not to appear

for the appellant in a contempt petition and to direct that he should

merely assist the court.

42. In the present case, instead of adjudicating on the legal position

taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on affidavit or hearing

the Additional Advocate General present in the court, the High Court

repeatedly summoned government officials. The government was

also directed to notify the Rules based on a “no objection” from the

officials of the Finance Department purportedly made before the

High Court, which is now contested by the state. Such situations can

be avoided in cases where submissions on affidavit can be sought

and the law officers of the Government are present in court, with

instructions. The issuance of bailable warrants by the High Court

against officials, including the Chief Secretary, who was not even

summoned in the first place, further indicates the attempt by the

High Court to unduly pressurise the government.

9 (1994) 4 SCC 34. 

234 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

43. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Sharma,10

frowned upon the frequent summoning of government officials “at

the drop of a hat”. This Court held:

“17. A practice has developed in certain High Courts

to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct

or indirect pressure. The line of separation of powers

between Judiciary and Executive is sought to be crossed

by summoning the officers and in a way pressurizing them

to pass an order as per the whims and fancies of the Court. 

18. The public officers of the Executive are also performing

their duties as the third limbs of the governance. The

actions or decisions by the officers are not to benefit them,

but as a custodian of public funds and in the interest of

administration, some decisions are bound to be taken. It

is always open to the High Court to set aside the decision

which does not meet the test of judicial review, but

summoning officers frequently is not appreciable at all. The

same is liable to be condemned in the strongest words.

21. Thus, we feel, it is time to reiterate that public officers

should not be called to court unnecessarily. The dignity and

majesty of the court is not enhanced when an officer is

called to court. Respect to the court has to be commanded

and not demanded and the same is not enhanced by calling

the public officers. The presence of public officer comes

at the cost of other official engagement demanding their

attention. Sometimes, the officers even have to travel long

distance. Therefore, summoning of the officer is against

the public interest as many important tasks entrusted to

him get delayed, creating extra burden on the officer or

delaying the decisions awaiting his opinion. The court

proceedings also take time, as there is no mechanism

of fixed time hearing in courts as of now. The courts

have the power of pen which is more effective than the

presence of an officer in court. If any particular issue

10 (2021) 7 SCC 806.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 235

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

arises for consideration before the court and the advocate

representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised

to write such doubt in the order and give time to the State

or its officers to respond.”

(emphasis supplied)

44. Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort.

While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to

judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is

not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks

against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers

contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the

country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism,

duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law

officers, who represent the government and its officials before the

courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of

relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary

to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.

45. Enriched by the valuable insights shared in discussions with my

esteemed colleagues Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra,

we have framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically

addressing the appearance of Government Officials before the

courts. At its core, this SOP emphasizes the critical need for courts

to exercise consistency and restraint. It aims to serve as a guiding

framework, steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent

summoning of government officials and promoting maturity in their

functioning. The SOP is set out below:

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance

of Government Officials in Court Proceedings

This Standard Operating Procedure is applicable to all court

proceedings involving the government in cases before the Supreme

Court, High Courts and all other courts acting under their respective

appellate and/or original jurisdiction or proceedings related to

contempt of court.

1. Personal presence pending adjudication of a dispute

1.1 Based on the nature of the evidence taken on record,

proceedings may broadly be classified into three categories:

236 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

a. Evidence-based Adjudication: These proceedings

involve evidence such as documents or oral

statements. In these proceedings, a government

official may be required to be physically present for

testimony or to present relevant documents. Rules

of procedure, such as the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, or Criminal Procedure Code 1973, govern

these proceedings.

b. Summary Proceedings: These proceedings, often

called summary proceedings, rely on affidavits,

documents, or reports. They are typically governed

by the Rules of the Court set by the High Court and

principles of Natural Justice.

c. Non-adversarial Proceedings: While hearing nonadversarial proceedings, the court may require the

presence of government officials to understand a

complex policy or technical matter that the law officers

of the government may not be able to address.

1.2 Other than in cases falling under para 1.1(a) above, if the issues

can be addressed through affidavits and other documents,

physical presence may not be necessary and should not be

directed as a routine measure.

1.3 The presence of a government official may be directed, inter

alia, in cases where the court is prima facie satisfied that specific

information is not being provided or is intentionally withheld, or

if the correct position is being suppressed or misrepresented. 

1.4 The court should not direct the presence of an official solely

because the official’s stance in the affidavit differs from the

court’s view. In such cases, if the matter can be resolved based

on existing records, it should be decided on merits accordingly.

2. Procedure prior to directing personal presence

2.1 In exceptional cases wherein the in-person appearance of

a government official is called for by the court, the court

should allow as a first option, the officer to appear

before it through video conferencing.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 237

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

2.2 The Invitation Link for VC appearance and viewing, as

the case may be, must be sent by the Registry of the

court 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

2.3 When the personal presence of an official is directed,

reasons should be recorded as to why such presence is

required.

2.4 Due notice for in-person appearance, giving sufficient time

for such appearance, must be served in advance to the

official. This would enable the official to come prepared and

render due assistance to the court for proper adjudication

of the matter for which they have been summoned. 

3. Procedure during the personal presence of government

officials: In instances where the court directs the personal

presence of an official or a party, the following procedures are

recommended:

3.1 Scheduled Time Slot: The court should, to the extent

possible, designate a specific time slot for addressing

matters where the personal presence of an official or a

party is mandated.

3.2 The conduct of officials: Government officials participating

in the proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing.

Standing should be required only when the official is

responding to or making statements in court.

3.3 During the course of proceedings, oral remarks with the

potential to humiliate the official should be avoided.

3.4 The court must refrain from making comments on the

physical appearance, educational background, or social

standing of the official appearing before it.

3.5 Courts must cultivate an environment of respect and

professionalism. Comments on the dress of the official

appearing before the court should be avoided unless

there is a violation of the specified dress code applicable

to their office.

238 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

4. Time Period for compliance with judicial orders by the

Government 

4.1 Ensuring compliance with judicial orders involving intricate

policy matters necessitates navigating various levels of

decision-making by the Government. The court must

consider these complexities before establishing specific

timelines for compliance with its orders. The court should

acknowledge and accommodate a reasonable timeframe,

as per the specifics of the case.

4.2 If an order has already been passed, and the government

seeks a revision of the specified timeframe, the court may

entertain such requests and permit a revised, reasonable

timeframe for the compliance of judicial orders, allowing

for a hearing to consider modifications.

5. Personal presence for enforcement/contempt of court

proceedings

5.1 The court should exercise caution and restraint when

initiating contempt proceedings, ensuring a judicious and

fair process.

5.2 Preliminary Determination of Contempt: In a proceeding

instituted for contempt by wilful disobedience of its order,

the court should ordinarily issue a notice to the alleged

contemnor, seeking an explanation for their actions, instead

of immediately directing personal presence.

5.3 Notice and Subsequent Actions: Following the issuance

of the notice, the court should carefully consider the

response from the alleged contemnor. Based on their

response or absence thereof, it should decide on the

appropriate course of action. Depending on the severity of

the allegation, the court may direct the personal presence

of the contemnor.

5.4 Procedure when personal presence is directed: In

cases requiring the physical presence of a government

official, it should provide advance notice for an in-person

appearance, allowing ample time for preparation. However,

the court should allow the officer as a first option, to appear

before it through video conferencing. 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 239

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS

5.5 Addressing Non-Compliance: The court should

evaluate instances of non-compliance, taking into account

procedural delays or technical reasons. If the original order

lacks a specified compliance timeframe, it should consider

granting an appropriate extension to facilitate compliance.

5.6 When the order specifies a compliance deadline and

difficulties arise, the court should permit the contemnor

to submit an application for an extension or stay before

the issuing court or the relevant appellate/higher court.

46. In a nutshell, the conclusions reached in this Judgement are as follows:

a. 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 Judges of the

High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to

frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further,

the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the

power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it

on the administrative side.

b. The power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by the High

Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on

the ground that the application for recall of the First Impugned

Order was ‘contemptuous’. The actions of the officials do not

meet the standard of both ‘criminal contempt’ and ‘civil contempt’.

c. The conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning

government officials to exert pressure on the government, under

the threat of contempt, is impermissible. Summoning officials

repeatedly, instead of relying on the law officers representing the

government or the submissions of the government on affidavit,

runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.

d. The SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials

in Court Proceedings framed by this Court in Para 45 of this

Judgement must be followed by all courts across the country.

All High Courts shall consider framing rules to regulate the

appearance of Government officials in court, after taking into

account the SOP which has been formulated above.

240 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS

47. Both the Impugned Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023

are set aside and the appeals are disposed of. The High Court is

at liberty to hear the writ petition, in view of the observations made

in this judgement.

48. The Registry is directed to communicate the judgment to the Registrar

General of every High Court.

49. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case: Appeals

disposed of.