NEW DELHI: The union government has proposed to the Supreme Court a draft standard operating procedure (SOP) which asks judges to exercise restraint in summoning government officials to appear in person except in “exceptional cases”, give officials sufficient notice before requiring their presence and give them the option to appear via video conference.

In cases where the issues before the court fall within the “exclusive domain” of the executive, the draft SOP said the court should refer it to the executive for further necessary action. If the issue has wide implications extending to states and other stakeholders and not just the central government, the SOP recommends that courts “exercise caution” in proceeding to settle the larger question of law.

The Centre said it had drafted the protocol to create a more “congenial and conducive” environment between the judiciary and government and to improve the overall quality of compliance with judicial orders by the government, which would minimize the scope for contempt of court.

Submitting the draft SOP in a case arising from Uttar Pradesh where the high court directed the arrest of two senior officials for contempt, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said calling officials to appear before the top court or high courts should only be done in “exceptional cases”, be it to assist in matters of policy-making or in contempt proceedings.

Referring to instances in the past where officers have been insulted in courts for not being appropriately dressed up despite wearing a decent shirt and a pair of trousers, the SOP asked the court to refrain from commenting on the dress or physical appearance or educational and social background of the official.

It said government officials were not officers of the court and their appearance in a “decent work dress” should not be objected to.

The SOP also asked that where policy matters arise in public interest litigations or petitions before higher courts, the judges should not name individuals while forming any committee but only prescribe the broad composition of intended members. Further, reasonable time ought to be given for compliance with court orders if the matter requires approval or decision-making at various levels involving multiple ministries.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud allowed the Centre to file the SOP in April this year after staying the Allahabad high court’s order and ordering the release of the two officers. The high court had ordered the arrest of UP’s finance secretary and special secretary (finance) for non-compliance with its orders to provide facilities for retired high court judges.

The draft SOP said, “The in-person appearance of government officials should be called for only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. Courts should practice necessary restraint while summoning the government officials during hearing of cases (writs, PILs etc.) including contempt cases.”

The document which refers to the procedure to be followed in cases of contempt or otherwise, stated, “In matters that involve setting up of a committee for further examination, the court may prescribe only the broad composition/domains of members/chairperson of such committee instead of naming individual members and leave the identification or selection or appointment of individual members or chairperson with the government.

Where compliance with court orders involve complex policy matters, the SOP sought “reasonable time” to be provided and where more time is sought, the same be given as approvals require to come from minister/cabinet level and inter-departmental consultations become necessary to gauge its wider implications.

In contempt cases, the SOP said no contempt action should lie against judicial orders that cannot be enforced and the court must not haul up an official for contempt if the omission complained against him was not willful. Further, SOP required that the judge who passed the order should not sit in contempt as a contemnor has a right under Section 14(2) of Contempt of Courts Act to have the matter heard by another judge or bench.

Where the order against which contempt is initiated has been challenged before the same court or a higher court, the contempt proceedings should be kept in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the other proceeding.