Supreme Court Limits High Court Powers on Post-Retirement Benefits and Contempt: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Association of Retired Judges (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 4
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.

Can a High Court compel a state government to implement rules framed by the Chief Justice regarding benefits for retired judges? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, alongside the issue of whether government officials can be held in contempt for raising legal objections to court orders. This case highlights the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, particularly concerning the financial autonomy of the judiciary and the rights of government officials to seek legal recourse.

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that High Courts cannot direct state governments to implement rules framed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former judges and that criminal contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against government officials for seeking legal remedies. The Supreme Court also provided guidelines on summoning government officials, emphasizing the need for restraint and respect for the separation of powers.

Case Background

In 2011, the Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking an increase in allowances for domestic help and other expenses for retired judges. While this petition was pending, the Supreme Court of India, in 2014, in the case of P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India, recommended that all states formulate schemes for post-retirement benefits for High Court judges, similar to the one in Andhra Pradesh, preferably within six months. Subsequently, contempt petitions were filed for non-compliance, leading the Supreme Court to close proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2015, noting that they had framed a scheme, as per Justice V.S. Dave, President, the Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others. The Supreme Court also directed that states paying less than Andhra Pradesh should consider upward revision at the appropriate stage and time.

The State of Uttar Pradesh revised its post-retiral benefits in 2018. 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 then sought parity with Andhra Pradesh. Between 2019 and 2023, the Chief Justice of the High Court proposed rules for providing domestic help to former Chief Justices and Judges, purportedly under Article 229 of the Constitution. These rules allowed former judges to select their domestic help, with the High Court reimbursing wages equivalent to a Class-IV employee’s salary.

The High Court, while hearing the writ petition, summoned officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and passed various orders, including the two impugned orders which are the subject matter of this appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

On 5 January 2023, the High Court allowed the amendment application filed by the first respondent and directed the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh to appear in person to expedite the matter. On 12 January 2023, the Principal Secretary appeared, and it was submitted that the rules proposed by the Chief Justice were under consideration. On 19 January 2023, the High Court noted that while queries about the rules were resolved by the High Court, the State Government was raising queries to delay the matter. On 23 March 2023, the High Court expressed displeasure at the delay and summoned the Finance Secretary and other officers.

On 4 April 2023, the High Court passed the First Impugned Order, directing the State Government to notify the rules proposed by the Chief Justice. The High Court also directed that if the order was not complied with, the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance, and the officers present would have to appear on the next date. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a recall application on 19 April 2023, arguing that the High Court did not have the power to pass the directions, the rules did not fall under Article 229 of the Constitution, and that the concurrence of the Finance Department was necessary before notifying the rules. The High Court, on 19 April 2023, passed the Second Impugned Order, holding that the recall application was contemptuous and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the officers and servants of High Courts. Article 229(2) states that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be as prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice or a designated officer. However, these rules, concerning salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions, require the Governor’s approval. The relevant provision is 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 charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund”

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt. Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as “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.” Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as “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.”

Arguments

Submissions by the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify the rules proposed by the Chief Justice.
• It contended that the rules did not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution, which pertains to the service conditions of officers and servants of the High Court, and not judges.
• The State argued that the direction to notify the rules and for the Finance Department to accord approval could not be complied with since the concurrence of the Finance Department was necessary before notifying the rules.
• It was also argued that 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.
• The State submitted that the recall application was a legitimate legal remedy and did not constitute contempt.

Submissions by the High Court:

• The High Court argued that the rules were framed pursuant to the assurances given by the State of Uttar Pradesh in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) and Justice V.S. Dave (supra).
• It contended that the Finance Department’s objection to the competence of the Chief Justice was raised for the first time before the High Court.
• The High Court submitted that the Finance Department was attempting to stall all the recommendations of the High Court.
• The High Court argued that the recall application was an attempt to obstruct justice and constituted criminal contempt.

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the High Court’s direction to notify the rules was an overreach of its powers and violated the principle of separation of powers. The High Court, on the other hand, contended that its directions were aimed at ensuring the welfare of retired judges, as per the Supreme Court’s directions in previous cases. The High Court also argued that the Finance Department’s objections were a deliberate attempt to delay the implementation of the rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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.
2. 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’.
3. The broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct the presence of government officials before the court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2002 – The Supreme 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 judges of the High Courts.
• 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 – The Supreme 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.
• Leila David v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337 – The Supreme Court held that summary procedure for contempt can only be invoked in exceptional cases.
• Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly v. Abdul Majid Rather, (1994) 4 SCC 34 – The Supreme Court observed that there was no justification to direct the Additional Advocate General not to appear for the appellant in a contempt petition.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Sharma, (2021) 7 SCC 806 – The Supreme Court frowned upon the frequent summoning of government officials.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 229 of the Constitution of India – Pertains to the officers and servants of High Courts.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Defines civil and criminal contempt.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court clarified that this judgment directed state governments to frame schemes for post-retiral benefits but did not empower High Court Chief Justices to frame binding rules.
• Justice V.S. Dave (supra) [CITATION]: The Court noted that this judgment closed contempt proceedings against Uttar Pradesh for framing a scheme but did not authorize High Courts to mandate specific rules.
• Leila David v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that summary contempt procedures should be invoked only in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
• Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly v. Abdul Majid Rather [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the role of law officers in representing the government and that they should not be bypassed.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Sharma [CITATION]: The Court relied on this judgment to reiterate that summoning government officials should not be a routine practice and that courts should exercise restraint.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of the executive. The Court noted that the Chief Justice did not have the power to frame rules regarding post-retiral benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, as the provision only pertains to the service conditions of officers and servants of the High Court. The Court also emphasized that the High Court’s actions in initiating criminal contempt proceedings against government officials for seeking legal remedies were unwarranted. The Court stressed the importance of restraint and respect for the constitutional mandate of law officers.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the limits of judicial power. Factual aspects (30%) of the case, such as the specific actions of the High Court and the government officials, played a secondary role in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: 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.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify the rules proposed by the Chief Justice. The Court clarified that Article 229 of the Constitution pertains to the service conditions of officers and servants of the High Court, and not judges. The Court also emphasized that the High Court, acting under Article 226, cannot usurp the functions of the executive and compel the executive to exercise its rule-making power in a specific manner. The Court stated that the High Court’s directions were “impermissible and contrary to the separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution.”

Regarding the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the High Court could not invoke criminal contempt against the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the State was availing its legitimate legal remedy of filing a recall application and that non-compliance with an order, at most, constitutes civil contempt. The Court observed that the High Court acted in haste by invoking criminal contempt and directing the officials to be taken into custody. The Court held that the actions of the government of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute even ‘civil contempt’ let alone ‘criminal contempt’.

The Court also addressed the conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning government officials, stating that it should not be a routine measure. The Court emphasized that the power to summon should not be used to pressurize the government and that courts should rely on law officers and affidavits. The Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the appearance of government officials in court proceedings.

The judgment was unanimous, with all three judges concurring. The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of constitutional provisions and the principle of separation of powers. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and respect for the roles of other branches of government.

“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.”

“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.”

“Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. It clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power in directing state governments on policy matters and initiating contempt proceedings. The SOP framed by the Court will serve as a guide for all courts in the country, ensuring that government officials are not unduly harassed or pressured.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot direct state governments to notify rules framed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for judges.
• Criminal contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against government officials for seeking legal remedies.
• Summoning government officials should not be a routine measure, and courts should rely on law officers and affidavits.
• The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the Supreme Court must be followed by all courts in the country.

This judgment reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. It also ensures that government officials are not unduly pressured or harassed by courts. The SOP will ensure a more balanced and respectful interaction between the judiciary and the executive.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Both the Impugned Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 are set aside.
• The High Court is at liberty to hear the writ petition, in view of the observations made in this judgment.
• The Registry is directed to communicate the judgment to the Registrar General of every High Court.
• 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, keeping in mind the SOP framed by this Court.