INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 460, wherein the Supreme Court reprimanded the practice of certain High
Courts to seek personal appearance of officers and exert pressure on them.
The facts of the case are not relevant for our purposes;
hence, I will not be discussing them. Briefly stated, the Supreme Court passed
certain observations in relation to personal appearance of a government officer
in Contempt Proceedings.
In order to understand this further, let us
discuss those pertinent observations by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that by summoning the
officers to pressurize them, the line of separation of powers between the
judiciary and the executive is sought to be crossed. According to the Court,
the Public Officers perform their duties in the interest of administration and
as custodian of public funds.
Secondly, it was opined that it is always open for
the Courts to set aside any administrative decision, but frequent summoning of
officers is liable to be condemned and cannot be appreciated.
Thirdly, the Court cited the case of Divisional
Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683, wherein
it was observed that judges must know their limits and must not behave like emperors.
The Court also explained that the judiciary, the legislature and the executive
have their own spheres of operation and encroachment of one limb of the state
upon the domain of other upsets the delicate balance provided in our Constitution.
Fourthly, the Court also discussed Montesquieu’s
Theory of Separation of Powers and quoted Spirit of Laws as follows:
-
“Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial
power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with
the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to
arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator? Were it joined
to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
There would be an end of everything, were
the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to
exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the
public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
And lastly, the Court made an interesting
observation that “the dignity and majesty of the Court is not enhanced
when an officer is called to court.” The Court elucidated that presence
of public officers before the Courts have the cost of ignoring other official
engagements and loss to public exchequer as it could also involve travelling
long distances. The Court ended by noting that “the Courts have the power
of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in Court.”
Those were the observations by the Court. So, what
are my concluding remarks?
CONCLUSION
I agree with the underlying reasoning of the Court that the doctrine of separation of powers must be respected and merely to humiliate an officer, if his personal presence is called, it would only lower the majesty of the court rather than enhancing it. Courts are the Temples of Justice and so to say, Judges and the Advocates are its priests. Thus, conduct of highest possible standards is expected from them and condescending behaviour by the officers of the Court is not conducive to the reputation of the Judiciary.
No comments:
Post a Comment