New Delhi: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has said the Union government’s draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) concerning judicial conduct in government-related cases “read as if the Centre wants to dictate the exercise of judicial review by courts”, The Hindu reported.
“I have gone through your draft SOP… There are some points which actually say how judicial review should be exercised,” CJI Chandrachud told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the government.
The Union government had come up with a five-page draft SOP last week, telling the judiciary to treat government officials summoned to court in various cases “more congenially“, particularly in contempt of court cases. The note says that government officials are being summoned for the “slightest of reasons” while suggesting a set of sweeping proposals with regard to judicial proceedings in cases where the government is a party.
Responding to CJI’s comments on the draft SOP note, Mehta, for the government, sought to clarify that there is no intention on the part of the government to change the courts’ power of judicial review. He added that the note in question only refers to how senior government officials, including the chief secretaries, are being summoned by courts for the “slightest reason”.
The CJI agreed with the government’s view that there is a need to frame “broad yardsticks” on how government officials should be summoned by courts. He also concurred with the argument made in the draft SOP that there has to be a bar on the courts from summoning officials when the case is still pending an appeal.
The note pointed to the way judges pull up officers for not following a dress code while visiting courts. “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 draft SOP sought to reason.
The CJI said that the Supreme Court would restrict its order only to the aspect of issue of summons to government officials, and nothing else.
Among the various issues referred to in the draft SOP, the government said courts should only prescribe a “broad composition” of its expert committees and leave modalities, including finding members for these committees, to the government. It may be recalled that the top court had insisted on naming each member of the expert committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Sapre to look into the Adani-Hindenburg case.
The draft note also said courts should give some leeway to the government with regard to guidelines in cases concerning public policy issues. The government said compliance with judicial orders, which involve “complex policy issues”, would require time as well approval from ministries and consultation on a larger level.
The note also goes on to underline that judges hearing contempt proceedings relating to their own orders would go against the principle of natural justice. Instead, it says those facing contempt proceedings should have the freedom to ask for trial by another judge, and courts should not insist on a particular outcome, especially on matters concerning the executive domain. It should be seen if a judicial order is enforceable at all in contempt cases, the draft note had said.
The government says the idea behind such a draft SOP is to “create a more congenial and conducive environment between the judiciary and the government”. It hopes that the draft SOP will help improve the quality of compliance of judicial orders by the government machinery as well as save time and resources for both the courts and the government.