On June 5, a significant event unfolded as 34 members of the Indian civil service, including 17 collectors and principal secretaries to the Tamil Nadu government, appeared before the Madras High Court in response to contempt petitions. This unprecedented occurrence has sparked widespread discussion in administrative circles.
Unprecedented Summons Raises Questions
After waiting the entire day, the officers had their presence noted and were dismissed without further proceedings. The petitions may be heard on a later date. Many view this as a punitive exercise against officers who are not at fault. Critics question why the court did not first issue show-cause notices to determine prima facie disobedience before summoning all officers. They also suggest that video conferencing could have been used, aligning with the hybrid mode of hearing that courts are expected to adopt.
Loss of Government Man-Hours
This exercise resulted in substantial loss of government man-hours with little productive work accomplished. In one case, a collector who had already been transferred was required to appear in person. She flew to Chennai, waited all day, marked her presence, obtained an order dispensing with future appearances, and returned to her new district. Many other officers faced similar experiences.
Supreme Court's SOP Not Followed
The Supreme Court laid down a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in 2024 for court proceedings involving government officials. The SOP directs that officers be summoned in person only when there is prima facie evidence of information being withheld or misrepresented. It also recommends video conferencing as the first option and suggests assigning specific time slots for matters requiring personal attendance. The Madras High Court did not adhere to this SOP, which is binding on all courts under Article 142.
Burden on Officers
On one occasion, five principal secretaries were on the same flight to Madurai for contempt proceedings. One officer mentioned traveling to Madurai three times in a week for court appearances. This raises concerns about a significant increase in intentional disobedience by officers, necessitating personal appearances. However, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is meant to deal with intentional disobedience.
Legal Remedies Available
Officers can challenge orders before a division bench, seek a review, or apply for an extension of time. Such legal remedies do not amount to contempt and do not require personal presence. In many contempt proceedings, the original cases are disposed of at the admission stage after the government advocate takes notice. Often, the relevant information may not have been communicated to the officer concerned, and by the time the order is received, a contempt petition may have been filed.
Mushrooming of Contempt Petitions
Contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of the court, but such petitions are often filed to enforce orders. While civil courts can execute their own decrees, high courts lack similar powers for writ orders, leading to a proliferation of contempt petitions. This creates an impression that governments are unwilling to comply with court orders.
Need for Clear Implementation Mechanisms
High court orders often do not specify which officer is responsible for implementation. Unlike civil court decrees, writ orders lack clear mechanisms for implementation. Many parties arrayed in the writ petition may not be directly involved, yet they are summoned.
Historical Context
Some years ago, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, while dealing with a contempt matter, took exception to conflicting orders from different benches. Referring to the Tamil epic Silappathikaram, where Kannagi burned Madurai for a wrongful act, the court expressed dismay and asked, "How many more times is Madurai going to burn because of such wrongful orders?"
Growing Discontent Among Officers
There is growing discontent among government officers who are expected to attend to their duties and implement court orders. Courts should understand the practical limitations of the government machinery and follow a fair procedure, or at least adhere to the Supreme Court's SOP. Lamenting that court orders are flouted is less productive than ensuring timely implementation of orders through proper mechanisms.
All organs of the state function for the common good and public interest. (The writer is a retired judge of Madras High Court)
