Centre’s SOP Proposal For Supreme Court’s Deliberation: In its endeavour to create a more “congenial and conducive” environment between the judiciary and government, the Centre said it had drafted the protocol for the Supreme Court’s consideration. In its proposal to the Supreme Court, the union government had drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which asks judges to “exercise restraint in summoning government officials to appear in person except in “exceptional cases”, give officials sufficient notice before requiring their presence and give them the option to appear via video conference”.
According to the proposal of the draft SOP, the cases where the issues before the court fall within the “exclusive domain” of the executive, the court should refer it to the executive for further necessary action. If the issue has wide implications extending to states and other stakeholders and not just the central government, the SOP recommends that courts “exercise caution” in proceeding to settle the larger question of law.
The government said that the draft has been prepared as a protocol to create a more “congenial and conducive” environment between the judiciary and government and to improve the overall quality of compliance with judicial orders by the government, which would minimize the scope for contempt of court.
Submitting the draft SOP in a case arising from Uttar Pradesh where the high court directed the arrest of two senior officials for contempt, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said calling officials to appear before the top court or high courts should only be done in “exceptional cases”, be it to assist in matters of policymaking or in contempt proceedings, reported hindustantimes.com.
The SOP asked the court to “refrain from commenting on the dress or physical appearance or educational and social background of the government officials” as it referred to past instances where officers have been “insulted in courts” for not being appropriately dressed up despite wearing a decent shirt and a pair of trousers.
It said government officials were not officers of the court and their appearance in a “decent work dress” should not be objected to.
The SOP also asked that where policy matters arise in public interest litigations or petitions before higher courts, the judges should not name individuals while forming any committee but only prescribe the broad composition of intended members. Further, reasonable time ought to be given for compliance with court orders if the matter requires approval or decision-making at various levels involving multiple ministries, as further reported by hindustantimes.com.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud allowed the Centre to file the SOP in April this year after staying the Allahabad high court’s order and ordering the release of the two officers. The high court had ordered the arrest of UP’s finance secretary and special secretary (finance) for non-compliance with its orders to provide facilities for retired high court judges.
The draft SOP said, “The in-person appearance of government officials should be called for only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. Courts should practice necessary restraint while summoning the government officials during the hearing of cases (writs, PILs etc.) including contempt cases.”
from Latest News, Breaking News, LIVE News, Top News Headlines, Viral Video, Cricket LIVE, Sports, Entertainment, Business, Health, Lifestyle and Utility News | India.Com https://ift.tt/KuMLQbY