Case title:
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.
Date of Order:
January 03, 2024
Bench:
Hon’ble [CJI] Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J B Pardiwala (Judge); J. Manoj Misra.
Parties:
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Sharma
Respondents: Indian Oil Corporation and another
Subject:
The case involves the issuance of orders to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, by the High Court for the rules it made for the post-retiral benefits of the retired judges of the High Court. But when the government tried seeking its legal remedies, the court issued contempt of Court (criminal in nature), without any proper reason. However, the Apex Court quashed the allegations/charges filed by the High Court and termed them as Unconstitutional.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Article 226: Gives the High Court the power to entertain writs.
Article 229: Talks about the appointment of Officers and Servants.
OVERVIEW (Brief Facts)
- In this case the main basis lay around the two orders issued by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. (On 4th and 19th April 2024, respectively.)
- These orders gave rise to the separation of powers, criminal contempt jurisdiction and the recurring summoning of government officials to the court.
- On the 4th of April, the High Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to notify the body about the new proposed rules by the Chief Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High Court.
- It was directed by the Court that some government officials should be present before the court in the next hearing for the above-mentioned.
- Declining this, the Government made an application to recall the application as it had some legal obstacles whose compliance would have been difficult.
- The High Court referred to this recall application as ‘contemptuous’ and started criminal contempt proceedings against a few officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
- The Secretary (Finance), Special Secretary (Finance) and other government officials were taken into custody and bailable warrants were issued against the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) and the Chief Secretary.
- The Impugned order arose from a previous petition filed by the association of retired Supreme Court Judges, in 2011. The petition was regarding an increase in the allowance granted to former judges of the High Court for domestic help and other expenses.
- While this petition was pending(in the High Court), a three-judge bench of the ApexCourt in P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India, decided what post-retiral benefits that could be payable to the judges.
- After this judgement in 2014, the Court appreciated the steps taken by the Andhra Pradesh government and recommended that other States should make similar schemes for post-retiral benefits to former judges of the High Courts, preferably within six months from the Judgement.
- Many contempt petitions were filed before the Supreme Court for defiance of the Court’s decision in the aforementioned case. (Especially for the State of U.P).
- After the withdrawal of the contempt, the Government of UP in July 2018 revised the post-retiral benefits for High Court Judges.
- But Andhra Pradesh’s government increased the allowance for former High Court Judges.
- Due to this, the first respondent requested a revised scheme for being at par with the Andhra government accordingly.
- It was noticed that between the span of 2019-2023, there were some rules proposed for domestic help etc by the Chief Justice of the High Court and other former judges.
- The Preamble to these RULES that they were exercised by the power provided in Article 229 of the Constitution.
- The rules Highlighted points like ‘Selection of Domestic Help’, ‘Contractual appointment’, ’Reimbursement’, and ‘Wages.’
- For the above-mentioned', the High Court heard writ petitions summoned officials of the government of Uttar Pradesh and passed two impugned orders for the same.
- During the start of the year in 2023 January, the High Court allowed the plea of a revised scheme of payment to the judges/justices, which was made by the first respondent.
- Later on January 23, when the writ petition was being heard, the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice were asked to be present before the court.
- The State Government eventually filed a recall application to the above in April’23.
- It was highlighted that the proposal by the Chief Justice was in pending consideration certain queries were made for the same and the matter was asked to be placed before the cabinet.
- Due to this, the High Court initiated a criminal contempt case against the officials for noncompliance.
- Delayed in this submission procedure, the above-mentioned officers were again presented before the Court(1st impugned order). Hence, in response, the court noted that the law that was presented by the Principal Secretary was before the Finance Department on six different occasions, whose approval was yet to come.
- Secondly, the Secretary of Finance raised that the Justice lacked the power to make the rules.
- The Court observed that an objection with regard to the competence of the Chief Justice was raised.
ISSUES RAISED
The core issues that were raised in this case were related to:
- Whether the High Court possess the power to direct the State Government to inform about the rules proposed by the Chief Justice relating to the post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court?
- Was the contempt of court valid?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant( (Secretary Finance) counsel contended that the order passed from the contained the Rules that are beyond the competence of the Chief Justice and do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution.
- It was further contended that the Finance Department has to be informed before implementing any rules as their approval was needed beforehand.
- It was stated that the UNION Government and the Parliament are the competent bodies that make rules even in case of post-retiral benefits for former judges of the High Courts.
- Still when the contempt was levied on the government it challenged the above Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023. (before the Supreme Court).
- The Apex Court was requested to release the officers who were taken into custody under a bailable warrant for a speculated contempt of court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The main things that the respondents sought were the increase in the allowance for the former High Court Judges.
- It was emphasized that the State had to comply with the rules with the directions laid by the High Court.
- It was pressed that the Chief Justice had the authority to make rules that would eventually provide the retired judges domestic help, it was stated that these rules were important in the overall well-being
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- After the non-compliance with the order given by the High Court, in the Ramakrishnan Raju case, the Apex Court directed all the states to file an affidavit and mention the necessary steps that were taken for the same.
- Later an order was released in October 2015, in which the Apex terminated the contempt proceeding against the State of Uttar Pradesh. (Justice V.S. Dave, President, the Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others)
- The above events happened earlier when the government did not comply with the grounds laid by the Court. Eventually, slight variations were allowed from state to state as long as they followed the ground conditions.
- Later when the Government of the State agreed to the orders issued in 2018, a new plea was requested in accordance with the new amended scheme of the Andhra govt. new benefit scheme for the judges in 2022.
- Eventually, their plea was considered by the court, which was eventually challenged by the State Government(aforementioned).
- When the Government challenged the decision of the High Court, as per Article 229, the court took the objection as against the competence of the Chief Justice.
- The High Court further added that the Finance Department was attempting to stall the recommendations (past and recent). It was stated these objections should have been raised with the Law Department.
- It was stated by the court that the government agreed to the rules in the above-mentioned case and it was told that the rules would be made official with the new government order. (in 2018).
- But after the recall appeal in 2023, the High Court issued another impugned order(2nd), wherein, the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) was not present, and other officials like the Secretary (Finance) and the Special Secretary (Finance) were present even on the previous dates.
- As per the previous impugned order the court emphasised that the officials had no objection if the order issued in 2018 was modified or amended.
- According to the High Court, “ex-facie criminal contempt” took place as it did not indicate any valid reasons for non-compliance with the First Impugned Order.
- The court stated the affidavit was false and misleading as it did not specify which part needed to be recalled.
- Hence, based on the averments in the affidavit and the misconduct of the officers who misled the Court, prima facie, was said to have committed criminal contempt of the Court.
- The Court issued a few charges and bailable warrants against the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to make sure they were present on the day of the hearing.
- The Apex Court stated that the High Court did not have the power to direct the notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice.
- It was stated by the Supreme Court, that the rules in the preamble according to Article 229, related to ‘officers and services’ of the High Court. Whereas, Article 229(2) dealt with the conditions of service of officers and servants and not the judges on the High Court.
- It was stated that the Chief Justice does not have the power to make rules under the article.
- The court stated that the High Court erred on the judicial side, as it usurped the powers of the executive under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The Apex Court stated these directions were contrary to the Separation of Power as it cannot direct the government to enact rules specifically on one subject.
- Hence, the High Court was said to have acted beyond its jurisdiction by regularly summoning the government officials.
- The Apex Court emphasised the definitions of civil and criminal contempt, and adhered to the fact that criminal contempt was nowhere to be found in this case as there was no scandalising or lowering of the authority of the court, it was a stringent action taken by the High Court without a valid reason. Even if there was non-compliance, it would have been maximum civil contempt in the above case.
- Even though the contempt was not proven, the Apex court stated that the contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct any counsel or the parties from availing their legal remedies.
- It was acknowledged by the Court that the actions of the Government were not contemptuous in any format “civil/criminal”, they were seeking their legal remedies.
- It was emphasized that government officials must not be summoned regularly/unnecessarily.
- The court suggested a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), for officials to appear before the court.
- Ultimately, The guidelines for the SOP were issued.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the main issue is around the power that the High Court exercises over the state government. The power used is termed to be arbitrary by the Apex Court as it went beyond its jurisdiction, as it made rules against its area of expertise, violating the concept of Separation of Power. Not only this, the High Court exercised its arbitrary power to hold the officials liable without any valid reasons (for contempt of Court). The forceful imposing of rules on the Government was recognized by the Supreme Court and eventually, the Government and its officials were evicted of any charges levied with proper reasoning given
