New Delhi: Rejecting the practice of higher Courts Calling government officials “at the drop of a hat” for their personal appearance, Supreme court has said that judges should exercise their power within their limits with humility and humility, and not behave like emperors.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta said such practice should be “strongly condemned” as it also violates the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the Supreme Court. executive By summoning officers who “in a way pressurize them to pass orders as per the will and will of the court”.
Advising the judges not to resort to such practice, the bench observed that the respect of the court should be commanded and not demanded and it is not enhanced by calling public officials.
“The public officials of the executive are also performing their duties as the third organ of governance. The acts or decisions made by the officials are not to benefit them, but as a custodian of public money and something in the interest of the administration.” Decisions are there. Obliged to take. It’s open forever high Court To quash the decision which does not stand the test of judicial review but repeatedly calling the officers is not commendable at all. This can be condemned in the strongest possible terms.”
The apex court in its judgment observed that “a practice has evolved in some High Courts to summon officials at the drop of a hat and exert direct or indirect pressure. Seeking to cross the line of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive”. To summon the officers and in a way pressurize them to pass orders as per the will and will of the court.”
Referring to its earlier judgment, in which the court had advised judges to be humble in exercise of the power given under the Constitution, the bench said, “They should have humility and modesty, and not behave like emperors.” Legislature, executive and judiciary all have their own wide areas of operation. It is not appropriate for any of these three organs. State To encroach on the jurisdiction of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be disturbed, and there will be a reaction”.
The court passed the order setting aside a HC order dismissing a service dispute between a medical officer and the UP government, directing the state to pay 50 per cent back salary to a doctor for the period of a legal dispute of 13 years. was given, during which he had not discharged his duty as a government doctor and took up private practice. The court said that the High Court, while hearing the matter, had summoned several government officials to appear before it.
“We think it is time to reiterate that public officials should not be unnecessarily called to the court. When an officer is called to the court the dignity and glory of the court does not increase. Honor of the court should be commanded and not demanded and is not extended even by calling public officials. The public official’s presence demands their attention at the cost of other official engagements. Sometimes, officials have to travel long distances as well. Therefore, it is against the public interest to call the officer; important tasks assigned to him get delayed, additional burden is created on the officer or decisions awaiting his opinion are delayed.”
“Court proceedings also take time, because as of now there is no mechanism of fixed time hearing in the courts. Courts have the power of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in the court. If a particular issue is under consideration. arises before the court and the counsel representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised to write such doubts in the order and give time to the State or its officers to respond.”
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta said such practice should be “strongly condemned” as it also violates the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the Supreme Court. executive By summoning officers who “in a way pressurize them to pass orders as per the will and will of the court”.
Advising the judges not to resort to such practice, the bench observed that the respect of the court should be commanded and not demanded and it is not enhanced by calling public officials.
“The public officials of the executive are also performing their duties as the third organ of governance. The acts or decisions made by the officials are not to benefit them, but as a custodian of public money and something in the interest of the administration.” Decisions are there. Obliged to take. It’s open forever high Court To quash the decision which does not stand the test of judicial review but repeatedly calling the officers is not commendable at all. This can be condemned in the strongest possible terms.”
The apex court in its judgment observed that “a practice has evolved in some High Courts to summon officials at the drop of a hat and exert direct or indirect pressure. Seeking to cross the line of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive”. To summon the officers and in a way pressurize them to pass orders as per the will and will of the court.”
Referring to its earlier judgment, in which the court had advised judges to be humble in exercise of the power given under the Constitution, the bench said, “They should have humility and modesty, and not behave like emperors.” Legislature, executive and judiciary all have their own wide areas of operation. It is not appropriate for any of these three organs. State To encroach on the jurisdiction of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be disturbed, and there will be a reaction”.
The court passed the order setting aside a HC order dismissing a service dispute between a medical officer and the UP government, directing the state to pay 50 per cent back salary to a doctor for the period of a legal dispute of 13 years. was given, during which he had not discharged his duty as a government doctor and took up private practice. The court said that the High Court, while hearing the matter, had summoned several government officials to appear before it.
“We think it is time to reiterate that public officials should not be unnecessarily called to the court. When an officer is called to the court the dignity and glory of the court does not increase. Honor of the court should be commanded and not demanded and is not extended even by calling public officials. The public official’s presence demands their attention at the cost of other official engagements. Sometimes, officials have to travel long distances as well. Therefore, it is against the public interest to call the officer; important tasks assigned to him get delayed, additional burden is created on the officer or decisions awaiting his opinion are delayed.”
“Court proceedings also take time, because as of now there is no mechanism of fixed time hearing in the courts. Courts have the power of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in the court. If a particular issue is under consideration. arises before the court and the counsel representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised to write such doubts in the order and give time to the State or its officers to respond.”
.