CJ adopts Supreme Court’s SOP on personal appearance of officials in courts

Srinagar, Mar 26: The Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has adopted the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Supreme Court regarding the personal appearance of government officials in court proceedings.

The High Court has adopted the SOP in keeping with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated January 3, 2024, in the case titled State of Uttar Pradesh and Others versus Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad and Others.

The Supreme Court has laid down the SOP to guide High Courts across the country in directing the personal appearance of government officials in the courts.

According to a notification issued by the Registrar General of the Court, Shahzad Azeem, SOP underscores that the court should allow as a first option, the officer to appear before it through video conferencing.

However, it says the in-person appearance of government officials should continue in exceptional cases.

“This SOP should apply to all court proceedings involving the government in cases before this High Court and all other courts acting under their respective appellate and or original jurisdiction or proceedings related to contempt of court,” the notification reads.

The notification points out that based on the nature of the evidence taken on record, the proceedings have been broadly classified into three categories.

EVIDENCE-BASED ADJUDICATION

These proceedings involve evidence like documents or oral statements.

“In these proceedings, a government official be required to be physically present for testimony or to present relevant documents. Rules of procedure like the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, govern these proceedings,” the notification states.

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

These proceedings, often called summary proceedings, rely on affidavits, documents, or reports. “They are typically governed by the Rules of the Court set by the High Court and principles of natural justice,” the notification states.

NON-ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS

While hearing non-adversarial proceedings, the court may require the presence of government officials to understand a complex policy or technical matter that the law officers of the government may not be able to address.

“Other than in cases falling under Para 1.1(a) (Evidence-based Adjudication), if the issues can be addressed through affidavits and other documents, physical presence may not be necessary and should not be directed as a routine measure,” the notification states.

The SOP underscores the presence of a government official may be directed, inter alia, in cases where the court is prima facie satisfied that specific information is not being provided or is intentionally withheld, or if the correct position is being suppressed or misrepresented.

Moreover, it points out that the court should not direct the presence of an official solely because the official's stance in the affidavit differs from the court's view.

“In such cases, if the matter can be resolved based on existing records, it should be decided on merits accordingly,” it says.

Regarding the procedure before directing personal presence, the SOP provides that in exceptional cases wherein the in-person appearance of government officials is called for by the court, the court should allow as a first option, the officer to appear before it through video conferencing.

“The invitation link for VC appearance and viewing, as the case may be, must be sent by the Registry of the court to the given mobile numbers and email addresses by SMS, email, or WhatsApp of the concerned official at least a day before the scheduled hearing,” the notification states.

The SOP adopted by the court provides that when the personal presence of an official is directed, reasons should be recorded as to why such presence is required.

While the SOP urges that due notice for an in-person appearance, giving sufficient time for such appearance, must be served in advance to the official, it says, “This would enable the official to come prepared and render due assistance to the court for proper adjudication of the matter for which they have been summoned.”