Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Monday said some parts of a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prepared by the Centre to tailor judicial conduct in government-related cases read as if the Centre wants to dictate the exercise of judicial review by courts
“I have gone through your draft SOP… There are some points which actually say how judicial review should be exercised,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the government.
Mr. Mehta flatly denied any intention on the government’s part to modify the courts’ power of judicial review through the draft SOP. He said the draft focusses on how senior government officials, including the Chief Secretaries, are being summoned by courts for the slightest reason.
Reserving the case for orders, Chief Justice Chandrachud agreed to frame “broad yardsticks” on the issue of calling government officials to court.
The Chief Justice also found several important points worth consideration in the draft SOP, including a proposed bar on courts from summoning officials when the case was still pending in appeal.
Dress code
The SOP had also highlighted how officials were pulled up by judges 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 had reasoned.
The Chief Justice made it clear that the Supreme Court would restrict its order only to the aspect of issue of summons to government officials, and nothing else.
The draft SOP had ventured into other issues, including that courts need to only prescribe the “broad composition” of its expert committees and leave the rest, including finding members for these panels, to the government’s wisdom.
It had further cautioned the court against insisting on specific guidelines in cases concerning public policy issues. Compliance of judicial orders involving “complex policy matters” would require time, approval from Ministers, consultations on wider implications, it had explained.
The draft SOP had also said it was against the principle of natural justice for judges to hear contempt proceedings relating to their own orders. In such cases, the persons charged with contempt should be free to ask for trial by another judge. Besides, in contempt cases, it had to be seen if the judicial order was enforceable at all. Courts ought not to insist on a particular outcome, especially on issues exclusively in the executive domain.
The government has said the draft SOP intends to “create a more congenial and conducive environment between the judiciary and the government. It aims to improve the overall quality of compliance of judicial orders by the government, minimise the scope for contempt of court and save time and resources for both the court and the government”.
