Holding

Summoning senior government officials for routine matters like a 25‑day filing delay is unjustified; such summons may be issued only in rare, compelling situations.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed a Gujarat High Court order that summoned the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary to appear personally because the State’s appeal was filed 25 days late, citing staff shortages in the Public Prosecutor’s office. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in summoning senior officials for a routine delay, emphasizing that courts may summon such officials only in rare, compelling circumstances. It warned that routine summoning undermines judicial propriety, wastes public resources, and disrespects the executive. The Court suggested alternative measures, such as directing the Advocate General to convey the Court’s concerns. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

What is the propriety of a High Court summoning senior government officials (Chief Secretary, Law Secretary) to address a delay in filing an appeal?
Does the High Court have the power to summon such officials, and if so, under what circumstances?
Should the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal be condoned without summoning senior officials?

Subjects

judicial proprietysummoning senior officialsexecutive-judiciary relationscondonation of delayhigh court powersjudicial restraint

Judgment

j

STAIB OF GUJARAT ,A
v.
TURABALI GULAMHUSSAIN HIRANt AND ANR.

OCTOBER 04, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHURAND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.J

Judicial propriety:
Summoningofbureaucrats-Delayo/25 days infilingappealby c
Government-High Court summoning the Law Secretary and Chief
Secretary-Propriety of-Held: Not proper-Such summoning of
senior Government officials to be done only in rare and exceptional
case when there are compelling circumstances to do so and not in a
routine manner-Judicial restraint-Practice and procedure. D

The appellant-State had filed an appeal and an application for
condoning delay of25 days in filing appeal on the ground that there was
shortage of staff including stenographers in the office of Publi~
Prosecutor. E
The High Court by ~mpugned order directed the Chief Secretary
and Law Secretary of the State Government to be personally present
to apprise the Court about effective steps taken by them for providing
sufficientstaff to the office of Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor.
Aggrieved appellant-State filed the present appeal. F

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court was totally unjustified in summoning
the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary merely because there was, a G
delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. (Para 4] [534-A, B]
'
2. The High Court has power to summon these officials, but that
should be done in very rare and exceptional cases when there are
compelling circumstances to do so. Such summoning orders should not
531 H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A be passed lightly or as a routine. (Para 7) (534-F]

3. Judges should have modesty and humility. They should realize
that summoning a senior official, except in some very rare and
exceptional situation, and that too for compelling reasons, is counter
B productive and may also involve·heavy expenses and valuable time of
the officialconcerned. [Para 8) [534-G,H)

4. The judiciary must have respect for the executive and the
legislature. Judges.should realize that officials like the Chief Secretary,
Secretary to the ,government, Commissioners, District Magistrates,
C senior police officials etc. are extremely busy persons ~h~ a~e often
working from morning till night. No doubt, the ministers lay down the
policy, but the actual implementation ofthe 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. Ifthey are summoned
D by the Court they will, of course, appear before the Court, but then a
lot of public m()l!_ey 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 oflndia not realizing that
it entails heavy expenditure like ~rranging of a BSF aircraft, cc;mpled
E with public money and valuable time which would have been otherwise
spent on public welfare. (Para 9) (535-A, B, C]

5. Hence, frequent, casual and lackadaisical summoning of high
officials by the Court cannot be appreciated. The Court is constrained
F to make these observations because in large number of cases where
such orden for summoning of high officials are being passed by the High
Courts, it is nothing but for the ego satisfaction of the Judge.
[Para 10) [535-D, E]

G 6. This does not mean that in no circumstances 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 to stand all the time when the hearing
H is going on, and they can be offered a chair by the Court to sit. They
J
STATE v. 1URABALI GULAMHUSSAIN HIRANI [KATJU, J.] 533

need to stand only when answering or making a statement in the Court. A
The senior officials too have their self-respect, and if the Court gives
them respect they in tum will respect the Court. Respect begets respect.
[Para 11] [535-F, F, G]

7. There was no occasion or reason for the learned Judge to B
summon the Chief Secretary or the Law Secretary by the impugned
order. If the learned Judge was concerned about the lack of enough
)
Stenographers in the office ofthe 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 there was C
no need to summon the Chief Secretary or Law Secretary.
[Para 13] [534-D, E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1338of2007.
D
From the Judgment and final Order dated 11.4.2007 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13747
of2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 728 of2005.
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky and Shivangi for the Appellant.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned interim order
dated 11.4.2007 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous F
Application No. 13747/2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 728/2005.
3. A perusal of the impugned interim order shows that a Criminal
Appeal was filed with a delay of 25 days. The learned Judge of the Gujarat
High Court (Hon'ble R.S. Garg, J.) on the application for condonation
~ of delay in filing the appeal passed the impugned order directing the Chief G
Secretary and Law Secretary of the Gujarat government to be personally
present before him on 20.4.2007 "so that the Court may have a direct
dialogue with them that what effective steps they are taking to provide
sufficient staff to the office of the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A andto avoid delay at·every stage". It may be mentioned thaHhereason >--
given for the delay of 25 days was the shortage of staff including
stenographers in the office of the Public Prosecutor.
4. In our opinion, the learned Judge of Gujarat High Court was
B totally unjustified in summoning the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary
merely because there was a delay of25 days in filing the appeal. It may
be mentioned that the same Hon'ble Judge (Hon. R.S Garg, J.) in several
other cases also summoned the Chief Secretary to appear before him
personally. Thus, in Special Civil Application Nos. 13969/1993 and 6896/
C 1993 titled Gujarat Hotels Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
dated 18.1.2007 he summoned the Chief Secretary to appear before him
personally. That case related to an incentive scheme of the State
government for attracting new entrepreneurs.
5. In another case, Special Civil Application No. 8209/1998 titled
D· Gujarat Revenue Tribunal v. A.K. Chakraborty, !AS, the Bench of
Hon'ble R.S. Garg and Hon'ble M.R. Shah, JJ. by an order dated J...
28.2.2007 ordered the Chief Secretary to be personally present on
6.3.2007 "so that the Court may discuss the niceties with him and may
ask him certain questions hovering in the mind of the Court".
E
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 officials
F 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 orders should not be passed lightly or as a routine or at the
G drop~a~. ~

8. Judges should have modesty and humility. They should realize that
summoning a senior official, except in some very rare and exceptional
situation, and that too for compelling reasons, is counter productive and
H may also involve heavy expenses and valuable time of the official
., STATE v. TIJRABALI GULAMHUSSAIN HIRANI [KATJU, J.] 535

concerned. A

9. The judiciary must have respect for the executive and 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 B
from morning till night. No doubt, the ministers lay down the 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 public C
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 public money
and valuable time which would have been otherwise spent on public D
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 are coming across a large number of cases
where such orders summoning of high officials are being passed by the· E
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 on no
occasion should an official be summoned by the Court. In some extreme F
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 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 G
statement in the Court. The senior officials too have their self-respect, and
if the Court gives them respect they in tum will respect the Court. Respect
begets respect.
12. It sometimes happens that a senior official may not even know
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.
\
A about the order of the High Court. For example, if the High Court stays >- .
the order of the Collector of suspension of a class-III orclass IV employee
in a 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
B to know about it only after a few days. In the meantime a contempt of
court 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
C 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
Collector comes to know about.the stay order of the High Court, he orders
D 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 was concerned about the lack of
E enough Stenographers in the office of the Public Prosecutor he could have
called the Advocate General or Govt. Advocate to his chamber and have
m;!(ed him to convey the Court's displeasure to the government, but where
was the need to summon the Chief Secretary or Law Secretary ? Hence,
we set aside the impugned interim order dated 11.4.2007 and condone
F the delay of25 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 allowed.
14. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to circulate a
copy of this judgment to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High
G Courts, who shall circulate copies of the said judgment to all Hon'ble
Judges of the High Courts.
D.G. Appeal allowed.