R.S. SINGHversusU.P. MALARIA NIRIKSHAK SANGH & ORS.

                         [2011] 3 S.C.R. 760


A                            R.S. SINGH
                                  v.
            U.P. MALARIA NIRIKSHAK SANGH & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5600 Of 2006)
                          MARCH 09, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]


          Summons - Summoning of senior officials by the High
    Court - Interim order passed by the High Court directing two
C   Senior Government Officials to appear personally for non-
    compliance of its judgment - Challenge to - On appeal, held:
    If there is non-compliance of the order, the High Court should
    first see whether the order can be complied with, without
    summoning any official - Government counsels can be asked
D   to communicate to the official concerned regarding the non-
    compliance of the order - Senior officials can be summoned
    to give explanation only in some extreme cases where the
    High Court is convinced that deliberately the order of the court
    was ignored in a spirit of defiance - There should be mutual
E   respect between the judiciary and the executive, otherwise the
    system would collapse - In the instant case, the High Court
    was not justified in summoning the said two Senior
    Government Officials - Direction. of the High Court
    summoning the two high officials set aside - Copy of the
F   order to be circulated to the Judges of all the High Courts and
    the Cabinet Secretaries, Union of India and State/Union
    Territories.

      State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani AIR
  2008 SC 86;State of UP. and Ors. vs. Jasvir Singh and Ors.
G JT 2011 (1) SC 446 - Relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:

         AIR 2008 SC 86            Relied on.            Para 13

H                                 760
 R.S. SINGH v. U.P. MALARIA NIRIKSHAK SANGH & 761
                      ORS.
    2011 (1) SC 446            Relied on.            Para 13       A
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5600 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2003 and
18.12.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,           B
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1457 (C) of
1992.

    S.R. Singh, Niranjana Singh for the Appellant.

    Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent.
                                                                   c
    The following order of the Court was delivered

                          ORDER
                                                                   D
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

     This appeal has been filed against the impugned interim
orders dated 13th November, 2003 and 18th December, 2003
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench
at Lucknow.                                                  , E

    We have perused the said orders.

     A direction has been given in the said orders that the
Principal Secretary, Finance along with the Principal Secretary,
Medical & Health, U.P. Government shall appear personally          F
before the High Court on the next date for non-compliance of
the judgment of the High Court dated 15.11.1
89/13.12.1989. DThis Court has been repeatedly observing th
t the High Courts ordinarily should not summon the
senior officials of the government and that sh                     G
uld only be done in very rare and exceptional cases when there
are compelling circumstances to do so.

    In State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani, AIR
2008 SC 86, this Court observed:                                   H
    762       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A         "6. A large number of cases have come up before this
          Court where we find that learned Judges of various High
          Courts have been summoning the Chief Secretary,
          Secretaries to the government (Central and State), Director
          Generals of Police, Director, CBI or BSF or other senior
B         officials of the government.

          7. There is no doubt that the High Court has power to
          summon these officials, but in our opinion that should be
          done in very rare and exceptional cases when there are
          compelling circumstances to do so. Such summoning
c         orders should not be passed lightly or as a routine or at
          the drop of a 'hat.

          8. Judges should have modesty and humility. They should
          realize that summoning a senior official, except in some
D         very rare and exceptional situation, and that too for
          compelling reasons, is counter productive and may also
          involve heavy expenses and valuable time of the official
          concerned.

          9. The judiciary must have respect for the executive and
E
          the legislature. Judges should realize that officials like the
          Chief Secretary, Secretary to the government,
          Commissioners, District Magistrates, senior police officials
          etc. are extremely busy persons who are often working from
          morning till night. No doubt, the ministers lay down the
F         policy, but the actual implementation of the policy and day
          to day running of the government has to be done by the
          bureaucrats, and hence the bureaucrats are often working
          round the clock. If they are summoned by the Court they
          will, of course, appear before the Court, but then a lot of
G         public money and time may be unnecessarily wasted.
          Sometimes High Court Judges summon high officials in
          far off places like Director, CBI or Home Secretary to the
           Government of India not realizing that it entails heavy
          expenditure like arranging of a BSF aircraft, coupled with
H
                        ':

R.S. SINGH v. U.P. MALARIA NIRIKSHAK SANGH & 763
                     ORS.
  public money and valuable time which would have been         A
  otherwise spent on public welfare.

  10. Hence, frequent, casual and lackadaisical summoning
  of high officials by the Court cannot be appreciated. We
  are constrained to make these observations because we
                                                               8
  are coming across a large number of cases where such
  orders summoning of high officials are being passed by
  the High Courts and often it is nothing but for the ego
  satisfaction of the learned Judge.

  11. We do not mean to say that in no circumstances and C
  on no occasion should an official be summoned by the
  Court. In some extreme and compelling situation that may
  be done, but on such occasions also the senior official
  must be given proper respect by the Court and he should
  not be humiliated. Such senior officials need not be made D
  to stand all the time when the hearing is going on, and they
  can be offered a chair by the Court to sit. They need to
  stand only when answering or making a statement in the
  Court. The senior officials too have their self-respect, a~d
  if the Court gives them respect they in turn will respect the E ·
  Court. Respect begets respect.                           ·

  12. It sometimes happens that a senior official may not
  even know about the order of the High Court. For example,
  if the High Court stays the order of the Collector of
  suspension of a class- Ill or class IV employee in a F
  government department, and certified copy of that order
  is left with the Clerk in the office of the Collector, it often
  happens that the Collector is not even aware of the order
  as he has gone on tour and he may come to know about
  it only after a few days. In the meantime a contempt of court G
  notice is issued against him by the Court summoning him
  to be personally present in Court. In our opinion, this
  should not be readily done, because there is no reason
  why the Collector would not obey the order of the High
  Court. In such circumstances, the Court should only request H
    764      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2011] 3 S.C.R.

A         the government counsel to inform the concerned Collector
          about the earlier order of the Court which may not have
          been brought to the notice of the Collector concerned, and
          the High Court can again list the case after a week or two.
          Almost invariably it will be found that as soon as the
8         Collector comes to know about the stay order of the High
          Court, he orders compliance of it.

          13. In the present case, we find no occasion or reason for
          the learned Judge to summon the Chief Secretary or the
          Law Secretary by the impugned order. If the learned Judge
c         was concerned about the lack of enough Stenographers
          in the office of the Public Prosecutor he could have called
          the Advocate General or Govt. Advocate to his chamber
          and have asked him to convey the Court's displeasure to
          the government, but where was the need to summon the
D         Chief Secretary or Law Secretary ? Hence, we set aside
          the impugned interim order dated 11.4.2007 and condone
          the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the High
          Court. The High Court may now proceed to hear the
          Criminal Appeal in accordance with law. The appeal is
E         allowed."

        Following the above decision, this Court in State of U.P.
    & Ors. vs. Jasvir Singh & Ors, JT 2011(1) SC 446, observed

F                 "7. It is a matter of concern that there is a growing
          trend among a few Judges of the High Court to routinely
          and frequently require the presence, in court, of senior
          officers of the government and local and other authorities,
          including officers of the level of Secretaries, for perceived
G         non-compliance with its suggestions or to seek insignificant
          clarifications. The power of the High Court under Article
          226 is no doubt very wide. It can issue to any person or
          authority or government, directions, orders, writs for
          enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.
H         The High Court has the power to summon or require the
R.S. SINGH v. U.P. MALARIA N'RIKSHAK' SANGA & 765
                     ORS.
  personal presence of any 'jfficer, to assist the court to         A
  render justice or arrive at a proper decision. But there are
  well settled norms and p ;ocedures for exercise of such
  power.

  8. This court has repee iedly noticed that the real power of . 8
  courts is not in pa~ sing decrees and orders, nor in
   punishing offenders and contemnors, nor In summoning
   the presence of ser 1ior officers, but in the trust, faith and
   confidence of the common man in the judiciary. Such trust
   and confidencfJ should not be frittered away by C
   unnecessary and unwarranted show or exercise of power..
   Greater the power, greater should be the responsibility in
   exercising such power. The normal procedure in writ
   petitions is to hear the parties through their counsel who
   are instructed in the matter, and decide them by examining
   the ple~dings/affidavit/evidence/documents/material. D
   Where· the court seeks any information about the
    compliance with any of its directions, it is furnished by
    affidavits or reports supported by relevant documents.
    Requiring the presence of the senior officers of the
    government in court should be as a last resort, in rare and E
    exceptional cases, where such presence is absolutely
    necessary, as for example, where it is necessary to seek
    assistance in explaining complex policy or technical
    issues, which the counsel is not able to explain properly.
    The court may also require personal attendance of .the F
    officers, where it finds that any officer is deliberately or with
    ulterior motives withholding any specific information
    required by the court which he is legally bound to provide
    or has misrepresented or suppressed the correct position.
                                                                      G
           9. Where the State has a definite policy or taken a
    specific stand and that has been clearly explained by way
    of affidavit, the court should not attempt to impose a
    contrary view by way of suggestions or proposals for
  · settlement. A court can of course express its views and H
    766       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A         issue directions throug, its reasoned orders, subject to
          limitations in regard to in~rference in matters of policy. But
          it should not, and in fact, it cannot attempt to impose its
          views by asking an unwilli~g party to settle on the terms
          suggested by it. At all evf.nts the courts should avoid
B         directing the senior officers tc. be present in court to settle
          the grievances of individual l~Jgants for whom the court
          may have sympathy. The court Should realize that the state
          has its own priorities, policies and compulsions which may
           result in a particular stand. Merelybei;ause the court does
c          not like such a stand, it cannot summon or call the senior
           officers time and again to court or issue threatening show
           cause notices. The senior officers of the government are
           in-charge of the administration of the State, have their own
           busy schedules. The court should desi$t from calling them
           for all and sundry matters, as that would amount to abuse
D
           of judicial power. Courts should guard against such
           transgressions in the exercise of power." ....... :

                                                  (emphasis supplied)

E       We are pained to observe that despite our decision in
  State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani (supra)
  many High Courts are persisting in summoning executive
  officials where it was not absolutely necessary to summon
  them. It is possible that our judgment in the aforesaid decision
F has not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judges in
  many of the High Courts and it may also be that the subsequent
  decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Jasvir Singh (supra)
  has not been brought to their notice. Consequently we are
  coming across many orders where High Court Judges are
G summoning executive officials routinely, casually, and
  sometimes even at the drop of a hat. This is most improper.

        We are constrained to make these observations because
    we are repeatedly coming across a large number of cases
    where such orders summoning high officials are being passed
H
 R.S. SINGH v. U.P. MALARIA NIRIKSHAK SAN",H & 767
                      ORS.
by the High Courts and often it is only for the ego satl\faction A
of the learned Judge. Judges should not have ari~ ego
problems. In particular, members of the higher judiciary {~igh
Court and Supreme Court) should have great modesty ar1
humility. This is because the higher one moves in the h'ierarchy
the greater become hi.s powers. Hence, unless one has ,
modesty and humility, he may play havoc. High Court Judges
have tremendous powers, but the beauty lies in not exercising
those powers except where absolutely necessary. Flaunting
th~e powers unnecessarily only brings the judiciary into
disrepute. Some of the greatest Judges have been the most c
modest, e.g., Justice Holmes, Judge Learned Hand, Justice
 Brandeis, Justice Cardozo, Lord Atkins, Lord Denning, Justice
Venkatachaliah, etc.

     At tlie same time, we make it clear that we have also
come across cases where orders of the Courts are deliberately        D
ignored by government officials which is not proper.
Democracy and the rule of law requires that the orders of the
Courts should ,,be complied with by the executive authorities
promptly and wit'1 due diligence. If the executive authorities are
dissatisfied with a High Court order, they may 'appeal against       E
that order to the Supreme court but it is not proper to ignore
such order8.

     In our opinion, ifthe High Court finds that its order has not
been complied with, it shall first see whether the order can be -F
complied with without summoning any official and for that
purpose it can ask the Advocate General, Additional Advocate
General or Chief Standing Counsel or some other counsel of
the State to communicate to the concerned official that there
is some order of the Court which has not been complied with. G
Ordinarily, this will suffice because we see no reason as to why
the executive authorities will not comply with the orders of the
court. It is only in some extreme case where the High Court is
convinced that deliberately the order of the court has been
ignor~d in a spirit of defiance that it may summon the official
                                                                   H
    768      sur'REME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A to expl<'.1n why the order of the court has not been complied
  with.

         The system functions on mutual respect between the
  j1.:.diciary and the executive. While the judiciary must respect the
   executive, at the same time, the executive must also respect
8
   the judiciary. If we do not respect each other, the system will
   collapse.

        In the present case, we are of the opinion that the HirJh
  Court was not justified in summoning the aforementior,ed
C officials.

       Following the decision in Turabali's case(supra) and Jasvir
  Singh's case (supra), this appeal is allowed and conse'quently
  the direction of the High Court summoning Principal Secretary,
0 Finance along with Principal Secretary, Medical & hrJalth is set
  aside. The Contempt Petition shall be decided on its own
  merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

       A copy of this order will be sent to the Regi.<>trar Generals/
  Registrars of all the High Courts, who shall circulate copies to
E the learned Judges of the High Courts. The Chief Justices of
  the High Courts, in particular, shall bring this judfJment to the
  notice of all Hon'ble Judges of the Court, with the, request that
  they follow this decision, in letter and spirit.

F       A copy of this order will also b~ sent to the Cabinet
    Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi r.is well as to all the Chief
    Secretaries of all States/Union Terri.'!ories.

    f'i.J.                                          Appeal allowed.