STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS versus ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 211, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 211 : 2024 INSC 4
Case Details
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
v.
Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court 
Judges at Allahabad & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos 23-24 of 2024)
03 January 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, CJI, J B Pardiwala 
and Manoj Misra, JJ.] 
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State 
Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining 
to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court; whether 
the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court 
against officials of the State Government on the ground that the 
application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the 
broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence 
of government officials before the court.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Arts 226, 229 – Summoning of 
government officials – Invocation of criminal contempt – 
Writ petition by the first respondent-Association seeking 
an increase in the allowance granted to former judges of 
the High Court for domestic help and other expenses – 
Issuance of direction by the High Court directing the State 
Government to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief 
Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to 
Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad 
High Court’ by the next date of hearing – Also directed the 
certain officials to be present before the court on the next 
date if the order was
not complied with – Application filed 
by the State seeking recall of the aforesaid Order – High 
Court held that the recall application was ‘contemptuous’ 
and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against various 
officials of the Government – Also the officials present in 
the court, including the Secretary (Finance) and Special 
Secretary (Finance) taken into custody and bailable warrants
212
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
issued against Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary 
(Finance) – Correctness:
Held: High Court did not have the power to direct the State 
Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice 
pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High 
Court – Power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by 
the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar 
Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall of the First 
Impugned Order was ‘contemptuous’ – Conduct of the High 
Court in frequently summoning government officials to exert 
pressure on the government, under the threat of contempt, 
is impermissible – Issuance of bailable warrants by the High 
Court against officials, who was not even summoned in the 
first place, indicates the attempt by the High Court to unduly 
pressurise the government – Thus, both the Impugned Orders 
set aside – Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on personal 
appearance of government officials in court proceedings framed 
by this Court. [Paras 46, 47]
Constitution of India – Art. 229(2) – High Court directing the 
State Government to notify the Rules proposed by the Chief 
Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges 
of the High Court – Correctness:
Held: High Court did not have the power to direct the State 
Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining 
to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High
Court – Chief 
Justice did not have the competence to frame the said rules u/Art. 
229 – High Court, acting u/Art. 226, cannot usurp the functions 
of the executive and compel the executive to exercise its rule-
making power in the manner directed by it – Compelling the State 
Government to mandatorily notify the Rules by the next date of 
hearing, in the First Impugned Order, virtually amounted to the High 
Court issuing a writ of mandamus to notify the Rules proposed 
by the Chief Justice – Such directions by the High Court are 
impermissible and contrary to the separation of powers envisaged 
by the Constitution – High Court, acting on the judicial side, could 
not compel the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the 
Chief Justice in the purported exercise of his administrative powers 
– Thus, the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction u/Art. 226 by 
frequently summoning officers to expedite the consideration of the 
Rules and issuing directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date, 
under the threat of criminal contempt. [Paras 25, 26, 28-30, 46a]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
213
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Criminal Contempt – Initiation 
of – Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh availing legal 
remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order – Criminal 
contempt invoked by the High Court against the officials on 
the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’ 
– Correctness:
Held: Power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by the 
High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh 
on the ground that the application for recall of the first impugned 
order was ‘contemptuous’ – High Court acted in haste by invoking 
criminal contempt and taking the government officials into custody 
and the same was not warranted – Actions of the officials did not 
meet the standard of both ‘criminal contempt’ and ‘civil contempt’ 
– In the second Impugned Order, the High Court held that the 
actions of the officials of the State Government constituted 
criminal contempt as there was no “valid reason” to not comply 
with the earlier Order wherein the High Court directed the State 
Government to inter alia notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice 
of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief 
Justices and Former Judges of the High Court’ by the next date 
of hearing – Even if the High Court’s assessment is assumed to 
be correct, non-compliance with the first impugned
order could 
at most, constitute civil contempt – High Court failed to give any 
reasoning for how the purported non-compliance with the first 
impugned order was of the nature to meet the standard of criminal 
contempt – However, even the standard for civil contempt was not 
met – While initiating proceedings of contempt of court, the court 
must act with great circumspection – It is only when there is a 
clear case of contemptuous conduct that the alleged contemnor 
must be punished – Power of the High Courts to initiate contempt 
proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their counsel 
from availing legal remedies. [Paras 33-36, 46 b]
Summons – Summoning of Government Officials before 
Courts – Broad guidelines for the courts:
Held: Appearance of government officials before courts must not 
be reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government 
is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances – 
Conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning government 
officials to exert pressure on the government, under the threat 
of contempt, is impermissible – Summoning officials repeatedly, 
instead of relying on the law officers representing the government
214
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
or the submissions of the government on affidavit, runs contrary 
to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution – Courts must be 
cognizant of the role of law officers before summoning the physical 
presence of government officials – Law officers act as the primary 
point of contact between the courts and the government – Instead 
of adjudicating on the legal position taken by the State Government 
on affidavit or hearing the Additional Advocate General present 
in the court, the High Court repeatedly summoned government 
officials – Government was also directed to notify the Rules – Such 
situations can be avoided where submissions on affidavit can be 
sought and the law officers of the Government are present in court, 
with instructions – Courts must refrain from summoning officials as 
the first resort – Thus, Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) framed 
specifically addressing the appearance of Government Officials 
before the courts. [Para 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46c]
Practice and procedure – Personal Appearance of Government 
Officials in Court Proceedings – Framing of Standard Operating 
Procedure (SOP):
Held: SOP on personal appearance of government officials in court 
proceedings emphasizes the critical need for courts to exercise 
consistency and restraint – It aims to serve as a guiding framework, 
steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent summoning 
of government officials and promoting maturity in their
functioning 
– SOP framed to be followed by all courts across the country – All 
High Courts to consider framing rules to regulate the appearance 
of Government officials in court, after taking into account the SOP 
formulated. [Paras 45, 46d]
Constitution of India – Arts 76 and 165 – Law officers-Attorney 
General for India and Advocate General for the State – Role of:
Held: U/Art. 76, the Attorney General is appointed by the President 
and serves in an advisory capacity, providing legal counsel to the 
Union Government – Similarly, u/Art. 165, the Advocate General 
is appointed by the Governor of each state – Several other law 
officers also represent the Union and the states including the 
Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General, and Additional 
Advocates General for the States – They inter alia obtain instructions 
from the various departments of the government and represent 
the government before the courts – Courts must be cognizant of 
the role of law officers before summoning the physical presence 
of government officials – Law officers act as the primary point of 
contact between the courts and the government – They not only
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
215
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
represent the government as an institution but also represent the 
various departments and officials that comprise the government – 
Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public 
officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to 
a fair and balanced judicial system – Courts across the country 
must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly 
considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law 
officers, who represent the government and its officials before the 
courts. [Paras 40, 41, 44].
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 2 – Civil contempt and 
criminal Contempt – Distinction:
Held: ‘Wilful disobedience’ of a judgment, decree, direction, order, 
writ, or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given 
to a court amounts to ‘civil contempt’ – Criminal contempt involves 
‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering’ the authority of any court; prejudicing or 
interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing 
the administration of justice. [Para 32]
List of Citations and Other References
P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India Writ Petition 
(Civil) No. 521/2002; Justice V.S. Dave, President, the 
Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and 
High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others Contempt 
Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015; Leila David v.
State of Maharashtra [2009] 15 SCR 317:(2009) 10 SCC 
337; Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly v. Abdul Majid Rather [1994] 
3 SCR 396:(1994) 4 SCC 34; State of Uttar Pradesh v. 
Manoj Kumar Sharma (2021) 7 SCC 806 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Keywords
Separation of powers; Criminal contempt jurisdiction; Summoning 
government officials to court; recall application; Allowance granted 
to former judges of the High Court for domestic help; Post retiral 
benefits to former judges of the High Courts; Writ of mandamus; 
Policymaking; Summoning; Civil Contempt; Criminal Contempt; 
Law officers; Judicial review; Unwarranted remarks; Standard 
Operating Procedure.
216
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.23-24 of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2023 and 19.04.2023 in 
WC No.38595 of 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Appearances:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Sharan Dev 
Singh Thakur, A.A.G., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Thakur, Adit J. 
Shah, Mustafa Sajjad, Ms. Keerti Jaya, Prem Prakash, Ms. Deepali 
Nanda, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal, 
Vatsal Joshi, Shlok Chandra, Akshit Pradhan, Raghav Sharma, 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, 
Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Advs. for 
the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents
I.	
Factual Background..............................................................4
II.	
The High Court did not have the power to direct the 
notification of the Rules proposed by the Chief  
Justice..................................................................................15
III.	
Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a 
party for availing legal remedies and raising a 
legal challenge to an order................................................19
IV.	
Summoning of Government Officials before Courts......22
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The present appeals arise from two orders of the
Division Bench of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 4 April 2023 and 
19 April 2023.2 The Impugned Orders have given rise to significant 
1  “High Court”
2  “Impugned Orders”
* Ed Note: Pagination as per original Judgment.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
217
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
questions about the separation of powers, the exercise of criminal 
contempt jurisdiction, and the practice of frequently summoning 
government officials to court. 
3.	
By its order dated 4 April 2023,3 the High Court directed the 
Government of Uttar Pradesh to inter alia notify rules proposed by 
the Chief Justice of the High Court pertaining to ‘Domestic Help to 
Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High 
Court’ by the next date of hearing. The High Court further directed 
certain officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to be present 
before the court on the next date if the order was not complied with. 
4.	
The State of Uttar Pradesh moved an application before the High 
Court to seek a recall of the Order dated 4 April 2023 highlighting 
legal obstacles in complying with the directions of the High Court. 
By its order dated 19 April 2023,4 the High Court held that the recall 
application was ‘contemptuous’ and initiated criminal contempt 
proceedings against various officials of the Government of Uttar 
Pradesh. The officials present in the court, including the Secretary 
(Finance) and Special Secretary (Finance) were taken into custody 
and bailable warrants were issued against the Chief Secretary and 
the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance). 
I.	
Factual Background
5.	
The Impugned Orders arise from a writ
petition instituted in 2011 
before the High Court by the first respondent, the Association of 
Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad. The 
petition inter alia sought an increase in the allowance granted to 
former judges of the High Court for domestic help and other expenses. 
6.	
While the petition was pending before the High Court, a three-judge 
bench of this Court in P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India,5 
decided a batch of cases pertaining inter alia to the post-retiral benefits 
payable to former judges of the High Courts. In its judgement dated 
31 March 2014, this Court appreciated the scheme formulated by 
the State of Andhra Pradesh and recommended that other States 
also formulate similar schemes for post-retiral benefits to former 
3  “First Impugned Order”
4  “Second Impugned Order”
5  Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2002
218
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
judges of the High Courts, preferably within six months from the 
Judgement. The Court held:
“34. While appreciating the steps taken by the Government 
of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already 
formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and 
trust that the States who have not so far framed such 
scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local 
conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and 
retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as 
possible preferably within a period of six months from the 
date of receipt of copy of this order.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.	
Subsequently, contempt petitions were instituted before this Court 
for non-compliance with the Court’s decision in P Ramakrishnan 
Raju (supra). This Court directed all states to file affidavits detailing 
the steps taken to comply with the directions. By an Order dated 
27 October 2015, reported as Justice V.S. Dave, President, the 
Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts 
vs. Kusumjit Sidhu and Others6, this Court closed the contempt 
proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that it had 
already framed a scheme in accordance with the Court’s directions. 
The Court further held that a slight variation from the yardstick in the 
Andhra Pradesh scheme is permissible keeping in mind the local 
conditions and directed that states that are paying less than the 
yardstick, shall consider
upward revision at the ‘appropriate stage 
and time’. The court held: 
“State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa, 
Mizoram, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra 
Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Telangana, 
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government 
of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, 
Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat and Assam
The counter-affidavits/responses filed on behalf of each 
of the aforesaid States indicate that a scheme has been 
framed in accordance with the directions of the Court. 
6  Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
219
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
While some of the States are paying more than what the 
State of Andhra Pradesh (Adopted as the yardstick by 
the Court) is paying by way of post-retirement allowances 
some others are affording lesser amount(s). A little 
variation from the yardstick can be understood in terms 
of the flexibility contemplated in paragraphs 33 and 34 
of the judgment which enable the States to frame their 
respective schemes keeping in mind the local conditions. 
As all the aforesaid States have framed their schemes, 
we direct that the contempt proceedings insofar as these 
states are concerned are closed.
We also direct that such of the states where the allowances 
paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall 
consider the necessity of an upward revision of such 
allowances at the appropriate stage and time.”
(emphasis supplied)
8.	
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 
3 July 2018 and revised the post-retiral benefits for former judges 
of the High Court. The domestic help allowance payable to retired 
Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court was increased to Rs. 
20,000/- (per month) for former Chief Justices and Rs.15,000/- (per 
month) for former judges. Under this revised scheme, after the death 
of a former Chief Justice or judge, the surviving spouse would be 
entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- and Rs 7,500/-
per month, respectively 
for life. In 2022, the Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the 
allowance to Rs. 50,000 for former Chief Justices and Rs. 45,000 for 
former judges of the High Court. The first respondent preferred an 
application to amend the prayers in the writ petition and sought parity 
with the new scheme framed by the Andhra Pradesh government. 
9.	
From the submissions of the parties and documents on the record, 
it appears that sometime between 2019 and 2023, the Chief Justice 
of the High Court proposed certain ‘Rules for providing Domestic 
Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of Allahabad High 
Court’.7 The preamble to the Rules indicates that they were framed 
by the Chief Justice in the exercise of his purported powers under 
7  “Rules”
220
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Article 229 of the Constitution. The operative portion of the Rules, 
which lie at the heart of the present case, follows: 
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of 
the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad is pleased to frame the 
following rules for providing the domestic help to former 
Chief Justices and former Judges of the High Court. 
…
“6. Selection of Domestic Help: The former Chief Justice 
or former Judge may at her, or his discretion select a 
person to be engaged as a Domestic Help.
7. Contractual appointment: The engagement of a 
Domestic Help under Rule 6 shall be on a contractual basis 
and will be available until the former Chief Justice or former 
Judge is entitled to the benefit of the facility under Rule 5 
and until the Domestic Help performs duties satisfactorily 
subject to the certification of the former ChiefJustice or 
former Judge. 
8. Reimbursement: Upon engagement, the monthly 
remuneration payable to the Domestic Help shall be 
reimbursed by the High Court to the former Chief Justice or 
former Judge after completion of the month in each month.
9. Wages: The wages to be reimbursed by the High 
Court to the former Chief Justice or former Judge for the 
engagement of the Domestic Help shall be equivalent to 
the salary payable to a Class-IV employee of the High 
Court in the grade of a peon or equivalent at the minimum 
of the scale
of pay inclusive of dearness allowance.
…”
(emphasis supplied)
10.	 In the above factual background, the High Court heard the writ 
petition, summoned officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh 
and passed various orders, including the two Impugned Orders. The 
orders of the High Court passed before the Impugned Orders are 
pertinent to understand the course of events before the High Court 
while adjudicating the subject writ petition.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
221
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
11.	 On 5 January 2023, the High Court allowed the first respondent’s 
amendment application. The High Court directed the Principal 
Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh to appear 
in-person along with the records to “expedite the matter”. The High 
Court held: 
“On specific query, the learned Standing Counsel submits 
that the scheme pursuant to the direction of the Supreme 
Court is already there and the amount is being duly paid 
by the State Government. However, the quantum of 
amount towards the benefits being granted to the retired 
Judges has not been revised since then. It is submitted 
that the matter for revision, if any, is to be considered at 
the highest level.
Be that as it may, in order to expedite the matter, before 
any further order is passed, it would be appropriate that 
the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of 
Uttar Pradesh, shall appear along with the records and 
apprise the Court of the stand of the State Government 
in the matter.
Amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for 
the petitioner to file an amended copy of the writ petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
12.	 When the writ petition was heard on 12 January 2023, the Principal 
Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh was present 
before the High Court. Further, it was submitted before the High 
Court that
the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice were pending 
consideration, certain queries were made to the High Court and the 
matter would be placed before the Cabinet for approval. The High 
Court listed the case for 19 January 2023 and noted that “on the said 
date, it is expected that the queries/clarification would be addressed 
by the concerned committee.” (of the High Court). 
13.	 On 19 January 2023, the counsel on behalf of the High Court 
submitted that while the queries about the Rules were resolved 
by the High Court, the State Government was raising queries in a 
piecemeal manner to keep the matter pending for a long period. 
The Additional Advocate General submitted that the Rules involve 
an amendment to the existing scheme and would be examined by 
the State Government expeditiously.
222
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
14.	 On the next date, 23 March 2023, the High Court expressed its 
displeasure about the delay by the State Government in notifying 
the Rules and revising the post-retiral benefits granted to former 
judges of the High Court. The High Court stated that it is “constrained 
to summon the Finance Secretary, Government of UP and all the 
associated Officers dealing with the file along with the Principal 
Secretary (Law), Government of UP to appear along with the records 
on the next date fixed.” 
15.	 On 4 April 2023, the High Court passed the First Impugned Order. 
As directed, the Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary, 
Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh were present. The High Court 
noted the submission by the Principal Secretary, Law that the matter 
was placed before the Finance Department on six occasions, but 
approval was not accorded. On the other hand, the Secretary, 
Finance submitted that the Rules are beyond the competence of 
the Chief Justice and do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of 
the Constitution. The High Court observed that the objection with 
regard to the competence of the Chief Justice was being raised for 
the first time before the High Court. The High Court observed that:
“5. On perusal of the record with the assistance of the 
learned Additional Advocate General, we do not find any 
such objection which is being pressed before this Court. 
In other words, the attitude of the
officers of the Finance 
Department is not only contemptuous, but at the same 
time their stand/submission with regard to the competence 
of the Hon’ble Chief Justice/ Article 229 is not reflected 
from the record”
16.	 The High Court further recorded the submissions of the counsel for 
the High Court that the Finance Department was attempting to stall 
all the recommendations of the High Court in the recent past and that 
the objections being raised by the Finance Department should have 
been raised with the Law Department. The High Court observed:
“6. […] The audacity of the officers to raise the issue 
of competence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, is not only 
unbecoming of a civil servant, but at the same time 
contemptuous. These objections are not available on 
record, nor have it been brought to the notice of the Law 
Department for legal advice. The Government Order 
granting benefits to the retired Judges is already in place,
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
223
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
the proposal of the High Court merely seeks to incorporate 
the same by amending, and/or, in supercession of the 
earlier Government Order. Article 229 is unnecessarily 
being ·pressed with the sole purpose of creating hindrance 
when there is none.
17.	 The High Court observed that the Rules were pursuant to the 
assurances given by the State of Uttar Pradesh in P Ramakrishnan 
Raju (supra) and Justice V.S. Dave (supra). Further, the High Court 
recorded that the Secretary, Finance conceded that the Rules could 
be notified by way of a Government Order amending or superseding 
the Government Order dated 3 July 2018. The High Court relied on 
this purported ‘no objection’ and directed as follows: 
“22. Secretary, Finance, fairly states that the Finance 
Department would have no objection in the event the 
Government Order to that effect is issued incorporating the 
proposals submitted by the High Court in the form of Rules. 
He further submits that the Finance Department does not 
have objections with regard to the financial implications 
in according approval to the proposed Rules/Guidelines.
…
25. Having regard to the categorical stand of the Principal 
Secretary Law and Secretary Finance Department, the 
following directions are issued:
1.	
The Rules/Guidelines as proposed by the High 
Court shall be notified by amending/incorporating/
superceeding the Government Order dated 3 July 
2018, forthwith;
2.	
The Finance Department would accord approval 
within a week thereafter;
3.	
The notification of the Government Order and the 
approval, thereof, shall be placed on record on the 
date fixed;
4.	
In the event the order is not complied, Additional 
Chief Secretary, Finance and the officers present 
today shall appear on the date fixed.”
(emphasis supplied)
224
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
18.	 The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a recall application before the High 
Court on 19 April 2023 seeking a recall of the First Impugned Order 
on the grounds that:
a.	
The High Court did not have the power to pass the above 
directions;
b.	
The rules do not fall within the ambit of Article 229 of the 
Constitution; 
c.	
The direction for the Rules to be notified and the Finance 
Department to accord approval thereafter cannot be complied 
with as the concurrence/advice of the Finance Department must 
be taken before notifying the rules; and
d.	
Only the Parliament and the Union government are competent 
to frame legislation/rules pertaining to post-retiral benefits for 
former judges of the High Courts.
19.	 On 19 April 2023, the High Court passed the Second Impugned 
Order. The High Court noted that the Additional Chief Secretary 
(Finance) was not present, while the Secretary (Finance) and the 
Special Secretary (Finance), who also appeared on the previous 
date, were present. The High Court noted that on the date of the First 
Impugned Order, the officials of the Finance Department categorically 
stated that they have “no objection” if the Government Order issued 
in 2018 is modified or amended. The recall application, according 
to the High Court, constituted “ex-facie criminal contempt”, as it did 
not indicate any valid reasons for non-compliance with the First 
Impugned Order. The High Court held: 
“30. [..] From
perusal of the entire affidavit, it is not clear 
as to which part of the order the officers intend to recall, 
rather, the prayer made therein is to recall the entire order, 
but no reason has been assigned as to how the order is 
obnoxious on the whole. In other words, the affidavit that 
has been filed today is false, misleading and averments, 
therein, constitute ex-facie criminal contempt.
31. On specific query, it is informed by the· officers present 
in the Court, on perusal of the record, that pursuant to 
the order dated 4 April 2023, the Chief Secretary had
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
225
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
convened a meeting of the officers on 13 April 2023. The 
Advocate General had opined to comply the order. Further, 
the office of the Law Department on 6 April 2023, had 
forwarded the proposed Government Order/amendment to 
confer benefits upon the retired Judges for approval of the 
Finance Department. The proposal is not to frame Rules 
under Article 229 of the Constitution. These facts have 
been suppressed. As per the stand of the officers, it is only 
after approval by the Finance Department, submitted by 
the Law Department, the matter would be placed before 
the Cabinet. In this backdrop, affidavit is not only false but 
also misleading as the affidavit does not disclose as to why 
the proposal submitted by the Law Department was not 
approved or the reason for not approving it, rather, frivolous 
issues have been raised with regard to the procedure to 
be adopted while notifying the Government Order or the 
issue of Article 229 of the Constitution. Affidavit does not 
clarify as to why the Government Order as proposed by 
the Law Department was not approved by the Finance 
Department till date. The approach of the officers of 
the Finance Department is writ large, that the proposal 
submitted by the High Court, would not be complied and 
in their overzealous approach and adamant attitude are 
opposing compliance of the writ court
order without any 
valid basis.
32. In the circumstances, having regard to the averments 
made in the affidavit and the conduct of the officers 
suppressing material facts and misleading the Court, prima 
facie, have committed criminal contempt of the Court.”
(emphasis supplied) 
20.	 The High Court directed that the officials present in the court, the 
Secretary (Finance) and the Special Secretary (Finance) be taken into 
custody and produced before the Court on the next day for framing 
of charges. Further, the Court issued bailable warrants against the 
Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to 
ensure their presence before the Court on the next day.
226
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
21.	 The above Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 have been 
challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by the present appeal. By 
an interim order dated 20 April 2023, this Court stayed the operation 
of the Impugned Orders and the officials of the Government of Uttar 
Pradesh, who were taken into custody were directed to be released. 
This Court directed:
“4 Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay” of the 
operation of the orders of the Division Bench of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4 April 2023 and 
19 April 2023.
5 The officers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who 
have been taken into custody, shall be released forthwith
6 The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall communicate 
the order of this Court both telephonically and on the email 
to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad for immediate compliance.”
22.	 We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General with Mr K.M. 
Natraj, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union 
of India, Mr Nishit Agrawal, counsel appearing on behalf of the 
Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at 
Allahabad and Ms Preetika Dwivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the administrative side. 
23.	 Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and 
examined the record, the following broad points of law arise for our
consideration: 
(i)	
Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State 
Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice 
pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High 
Court;
(ii)	
Whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by 
the High Court against officials of the Government of Uttar 
Pradesh on the ground that the application for recall was 
‘contemptuous’; and 
(iii)	 The broad guidelines that must guide courts when they direct 
the presence of government officials before the court.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
227
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
II.	
The High Court did not have the power to direct the notification 
of the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice
24.	 The preamble to the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice expressly 
states that the Rules have been made pursuant to Article 229 of 
the Constitution. Article 229 pertains to ‘officers and servants’ of the 
High Courts. Article 229(2) provides that the conditions of service of 
officers and servants of the High Court shall be as may be prescribed 
by rules made by the Chief Justice of the High Court or any other 
Judge or officer authorized by the Chief Justice for the purpose. The 
proviso to the Article mandates that the rules made under Article 
229(2) require the approval of the Governor of the State, in so far as 
they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. The provision 
reads as follows: 
229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High 
Courts. — (1) Appointments of officers and servants of 
a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the 
Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he 
may direct:
Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require 
that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person 
not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to 
any office connected with the Court save after consultation 
with the State Public Service Commission.
(2)
Subject to the provisions of any law made by the 
Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers 
and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be 
prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court 
or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised 
by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far 
as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, 
require the approval of the Governor of the State.
(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including 
all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in 
respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be
228
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and 
any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form 
part of that Fund
(Emphasis Supplied)
25.	 Article 229(2) pertains only to the service conditions of ‘officers and 
servants’ of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High 
Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not 
have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the 
post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of 
the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice, 
in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief 
Justice under Article 229. The reliance placed on the provision in 
the preamble to the Rules is misplaced. 
26.	 It is a settled principle of law that merely because reference is made 
to a wrong provision of law while exercising power, that by itself 
does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power of the 
authority can be traced to another source of law. However, in the 
Rules, the Impugned Orders or in its submissions before this Court, 
the High Court has not brought to the fore any other source of law 
which empowers the Chief Justice to frame binding rules for post-
retiral benefits of former judges of the High Court. In the Impugned 
Orders, the High Court merely adverts to the judgements of this Court 
in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) and Justice V.S. Dave (supra) to 
justify
the imposition of the Rules on the state government. 
27.	 In our considered opinion, the reliance on the judgements of this 
Court to justify the promulgation of Rules by the Chief Justice is based 
on an erroneous and over-expansive interpretation of the directions 
of this Court. As stated above, this Court in P Ramakrishnan Raju 
(supra) appreciated the scheme in Andhra Pradesh and observed 
that the Court “hopes and trusts that the States who have not so far 
framed such scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local 
conditions”. Further, in Justice V.S. Dave (supra), the Court closed 
the contempt proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh noting 
that the state had already framed a scheme for post-retiral benefits. 
The Court held that slight variations from the scheme adopted in 
Andhra Pradesh were permissible and flexibility was contemplated 
in P Ramakrishnan Raju (supra) for states to frame their respective
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
229
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
schemes. Further, the court directed that “states where the allowances 
paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall consider the 
necessity of an upward revision of such allowances at the appropriate 
stage and time.” 
28.	 There is no iota of doubt that in the above judgements, this Court 
directed the state governments to frame schemes for post-retiral 
benefits. The above judgements of this Court did not grant the Chief 
Justices of High Courts, acting on the administrative side, the power 
to frame rules about post-retiral benefits for former judges that must 
mandatorily be notified by the State Governments. Further, the Court 
recognized the need for flexibility and granted state governments 
the leeway to duly account for local conditions. 
29.	 Further, the High Court’s conduct on the judicial side in the Impugned 
Orders was also erroneous. The High Court, acting under Article 226 
of the Constitution, cannot usurp the functions of the executive and 
compel the executive to exercise its rule-making power in the manner 
directed by it. Compelling the State Government to mandatorily notify 
the Rules by the next date of hearing, in the First Impugned Order, 
virtually amounted to the High Court issuing a writ of mandamus to 
notify the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. Such directions by 
the High Court are
impermissible and contrary to the separation of 
powers envisaged by the Constitution. The High Court cannot direct 
the State Government to enact rules on a particular subject, by a 
writ of mandamus or otherwise.
30.	 The High Court, acting on the judicial side, could not compel the 
State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice in 
the purported exercise of his administrative powers. Policymaking 
by the government envisages various steps and the consideration of 
various factors, including local conditions, financial considerations, 
and approval from various departments. The High Court cannot use 
its judicial powers to browbeat the State Government to notify the 
Rules proposed by the Chief Justice. As the Rules were promulgated 
by the Chief Justice without competence, at best, they amounted 
to inputs to the State Government. The State Government was free 
to constructively consider the desirability of the Rules within its 
own decision-making apparatus. Therefore, the High Court acted 
beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 by frequently summoning 
officers to expedite the consideration of the Rules and issuing
230
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date, under the threat of 
criminal contempt. 
III.	
Criminal Contempt cannot be initiated against a party for availing 
legal remedies and raising a legal challenge to an order
31.	 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal 
contempt’ in the following terms:
2. Definitions. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise 
requires, — 
[...]
(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any 
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of 
a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether 
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible 
representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing 
of any other act whatsoever which—
(i)	
scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends 
to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii)	
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the 
due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii)	 interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or 
tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any 
other manner;
32.	 The Act makes a clear distinction between two types of contempt. 
‘Wilful disobedience’ of a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, 
or process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a 
court amounts to ‘civil contempt’. On the other hand, the threshold 
for ‘criminal contempt’ is
higher and more stringent. It involves 
‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering’ the authority of any court; prejudicing or 
interfering with judicial proceedings; or interfering with or obstructing 
the administration of justice. 
33.	 In the second Impugned Order, the High Court held that the actions of 
the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh constituted criminal 
contempt as there was no “valid reason” to not comply with the 
earlier Order. Even if the High Court’s assessment is assumed to be
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
231
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
correct, non-compliance with the First Impugned Order could at most, 
constitute civil contempt. The High Court failed to give any reasoning 
for how the purported non-compliance with the First Impugned Order 
was of the nature to meet the standard of criminal contempt. The 
High Court acted in haste by invoking criminal contempt against the 
officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and directing for them 
to be taken into custody. 
34.	 In our considered opinion, however, even the standard for civil 
contempt was not met in the facts of the present case. In a consistent 
line of precedent, this Court has held that while initiating proceedings 
of contempt of court, the court must act with great circumspection. 
It is only when there is a clear case of contemptuous conduct that 
the alleged contemnor must be punished. The power of the High 
Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct 
parties or their counsel from availing legal remedies. 
35.	 In the present case, the State of Uttar Pradesh was availing its 
legitimate remedy of filing a recall application. From a perusal of 
the record, it appears that the application was filed in a bona fide 
manner. Not only had the Finance Department raised its concerns 
regarding the competence of the Chief Justice before the High Court 
but its previous conduct, including
file notings of the department 
and letters to the Central Government, indicate that this objection 
had been raised by them in the past. The legal position taken by 
the Government in the recall application was evidently based on 
their desire to avail their legal remedy and not to willfully disobey 
the First Impugned Order. 
36.	 The objections raised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with 
regard to legal obstacles in complying with the First Impugned Order 
were never adjudicated by the High Court. Instead, the High Court 
regarded the objection as an attempt to obstruct justice, without 
even a cursory attempt to provide reasons. Applying the standards 
delineated above, it is clear that the actions of the government 
of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute even ‘civil contempt’ let alone 
‘criminal contempt’. The circumstances most definitely did not warrant 
the High Court acting in haste, by directing that the officials present 
before the court be taken into custody. This summary procedure, 
although, permitted under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act 
cannot be invoked as a matter of routine and is reserved for only 
extraordinary circumstances.
232
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37.	 Such summary procedure, as has been held by this Court, in Leila 
David v. State of Maharashtra,8 can only be invoked in exceptional 
cases, such as instances where: 
“36. ….after being given an opportunity to explain their 
conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse 
for their unseemly behavior, but they have gone even 
further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from 
repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain 
new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate 
language have been resorted to further denigrate and 
scandalize and overawe the Court. This is one of such 
cases where no leniency can be shown as the contemnors 
have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the Court 
as license for indulging in indecorous behavior and making 
scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary but 
those holding the highest positions in the country.”
No such situation prevailed in the present case. Therefore, the 
invocation of criminal contempt and taking the government officials 
into custody was not warranted. 
IV.	
Summoning of Government Officials before Courts
38.	 Before concluding, we must note the conduct of the High Court in 
frequently summoning officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
The appearance of government officials before courts must not be 
reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government is a 
party and can only be resorted to in limited
circumstances. The use 
of the power to summon the presence of government officials must 
not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, 
under the threat of contempt. 
39.	 The Court must also refrain from relying on mere undertakings 
by government officials in court, without consent on affidavit or 
instructions to law officers such as the Attorney General, Solicitor 
General, or the Advocate Generals of the states.  Courts must be 
cognizant of the role of law officers before summoning the physical 
presence of government officials. 
8  (2009) 10 SCC 337
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
233
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
40.	 Under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is appointed 
by the President and serves in an advisory capacity, providing legal 
counsel to the Union Government. The responsibilities of the Attorney 
General include advising on legal matters, performing assigned 
legal duties, and representing the government in various courts. 
Similarly, under Article 165 of the Constitution, the Advocate General 
is appointed by the Governor of each state. The Advocate General 
provides legal advice to the state government, performs legal duties 
as assigned, and discharges functions conferred by the Constitution. 
Several other law officers also represent the Union and the states 
including the Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General, and 
Additional Advocates General for the states. They inter alia obtain 
instructions from the various departments of the government and 
represent the government before the courts. 
41.	 Law officers act as the primary point of contact between the courts 
and the government. They not only represent the government as an 
institution but also represent the various departments and officials 
that comprise the government. This Court in Mohd. Iqbal Khandaly 
v. Abdul Majid Rather,9 had occasion to observe that there was no 
justification to direct the Additional Advocate General, not to appear 
for
the appellant in a contempt petition and to direct that he should 
merely assist the court.
42.	 In the present case, instead of adjudicating on the legal position 
taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on affidavit or hearing 
the Additional Advocate General present in the court, the High Court 
repeatedly summoned government officials. The government was 
also directed to notify the Rules based on a “no objection” from the 
officials of the Finance Department purportedly made before the 
High Court, which is now contested by the state. Such situations can 
be avoided in cases where submissions on affidavit can be sought 
and the law officers of the Government are present in court, with 
instructions. The issuance of bailable warrants by the High Court 
against officials, including the Chief Secretary, who was not even 
summoned in the first place, further indicates the attempt by the 
High Court to unduly pressurise the government. 
9  (1994) 4 SCC 34.
234
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
43.	 This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Sharma,10 
frowned upon the frequent summoning of government officials “at 
the drop of a hat”. This Court held: 
“17. A practice has developed in certain High Courts 
to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct 
or indirect pressure. The line of separation of powers 
between Judiciary and Executive is sought to be crossed 
by summoning the officers and in a way pressurizing them 
to pass an order as per the whims and fancies of the Court. 
18. The public officers of the Executive are also performing 
their duties as the third limbs of the governance. The 
actions or decisions by the officers are not to benefit them, 
but as a custodian of public funds and in the interest of 
administration, some decisions are bound to be taken. It 
is always open to the High Court to set aside the decision 
which does not meet the test of judicial review, but 
summoning officers frequently is not appreciable at all. The 
same is liable to be condemned in the strongest words.
…
21. Thus, we feel, it is time to reiterate that public officers 
should not be called to court unnecessarily. The dignity and 
majesty of the court is not enhanced when an officer is 
called to court. Respect to the court has to be commanded 
and not demanded and the same is not enhanced by calling 
the public officers. The presence of public officer comes 
at the cost of other official engagement
demanding their 
attention. Sometimes, the officers even have to travel long 
distance. Therefore, summoning of the officer is against 
the public interest as many important tasks entrusted to 
him get delayed, creating extra burden on the officer or 
delaying the decisions awaiting his opinion. The court 
proceedings also take time, as there is no mechanism 
of fixed time hearing in courts as of now. The courts 
have the power of pen which is more effective than the 
presence of an officer in court. If any particular issue 
10  (2021) 7 SCC 806.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
235
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
arises for consideration before the court and the advocate 
representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised 
to write such doubt in the order and give time to the State 
or its officers to respond.”
(emphasis supplied)
44.	 Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort. 
While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to 
judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is 
not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks 
against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers 
contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the 
country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, 
duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law 
officers, who represent the government and its officials before the 
courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of 
relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary 
to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.
45.	 Enriched by the valuable insights shared in discussions with my 
esteemed colleagues Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, 
we have framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically 
addressing the appearance of Government Officials before the 
courts. At its core, this SOP emphasizes the
critical need for courts 
to exercise consistency and restraint. It aims to serve as a guiding 
framework, steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent 
summoning of government officials and promoting maturity in their 
functioning. The SOP is set out below: 
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance 
of Government Officials in Court Proceedings
This Standard Operating Procedure is applicable to all court 
proceedings involving the government in cases before the Supreme 
Court, High Courts and all other courts acting under their respective 
appellate and/or original jurisdiction or proceedings related to 
contempt of court.
1.	
Personal presence pending adjudication of a dispute
1.1	 Based on the nature of the evidence taken on record, 
proceedings may broadly be classified into three categories:
236
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
a.	
Evidence-based Adjudication: These proceedings 
involve evidence such as documents or oral 
statements. In these proceedings, a government 
official may be required to be physically present for 
testimony or to present relevant documents. Rules 
of procedure, such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908, or Criminal Procedure Code 1973, govern 
these proceedings.
b.	
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. 
c.	
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. 
1.2	 Other than in cases falling under para 1.1(a) above, 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. 
1.3	 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. 
1.4	 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.
2.	
Procedure prior to directing personal presence
2.1	 In exceptional cases wherein the in-person appearance of 
a government official is called for by the court, the court 
should allow as a first option, the officer to appear 
before it through video conferencing.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
237
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
2.2	 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 no(s)/e-mail id(s) by SMS/email/
WhatsApp of the concerned official at least one day before 
the scheduled hearing
2.3	 When the personal presence of an official is directed, 
reasons should be recorded as to why such presence is 
required. 
2.4	 Due notice for in-person appearance, giving sufficient time 
for such appearance, must be served in advance to the 
official. 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. 
3.	
Procedure during the personal presence of government 
officials: In instances where the court directs the personal 
presence of an official or a party, the following procedures are 
recommended:
3.1	 Scheduled Time Slot: The court should, to the extent 
possible, designate a specific time slot for addressing 
matters where the personal presence of an official or a 
party is mandated.
3.2	 The conduct of officials: Government officials participating 
in the proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing. 
Standing should be required only when the official is 
responding to or making statements in court.
3.3	 During the course of proceedings, oral remarks with the
potential to humiliate the official should be avoided.
3.4	 The court must refrain from making comments on the 
physical appearance, educational background, or social 
standing of the official appearing before it.
3.5	 Courts must cultivate an environment of respect and 
professionalism. Comments on the dress of the official 
appearing before the court should be avoided unless 
there is a violation of the specified dress code applicable 
to their office.
238
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4.	
Time Period for compliance with judicial orders by the 
Government 
4.1	 Ensuring compliance with judicial orders involving intricate 
policy matters necessitates navigating various levels of 
decision-making by the Government. The court must 
consider these complexities before establishing specific 
timelines for compliance with its orders. The court should 
acknowledge and accommodate a reasonable timeframe, 
as per the specifics of the case. 
4.2	 If an order has already been passed, and the government 
seeks a revision of the specified timeframe, the court may 
entertain such requests and permit a revised, reasonable 
timeframe for the compliance of judicial orders, allowing 
for a hearing to consider modifications.
5.	
Personal presence for enforcement/contempt of court 
proceedings
5.1	 The court should exercise caution and restraint when 
initiating contempt proceedings, ensuring a judicious and 
fair process. 
5.2	 Preliminary Determination of Contempt: In a proceeding 
instituted for contempt by wilful disobedience of its order, 
the court should ordinarily issue a notice to the alleged 
contemnor, seeking an explanation for their actions, instead 
of immediately directing personal presence. 
5.3	 Notice and Subsequent Actions: Following the issuance 
of the notice, the court should carefully consider the 
response from the alleged contemnor. Based on their 
response or absence thereof, it should decide on the
appropriate course of action. Depending on the severity of 
the allegation, the court may direct the personal presence 
of the contemnor. 
5.4	 Procedure when personal presence is directed: In 
cases requiring the physical presence of a government 
official, it should provide advance notice for an in-person 
appearance, allowing ample time for preparation. However, 
the court should allow the officer as a first option, to appear 
before it through video conferencing.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
239
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS
5.5	 Addressing Non-Compliance: The court should 
evaluate instances of non-compliance, taking into account 
procedural delays or technical reasons. If the original order 
lacks a specified compliance timeframe, it should consider 
granting an appropriate extension to facilitate compliance.
5.6	 When the order specifies a compliance deadline and 
difficulties arise, the court should permit the contemnor 
to submit an application for an extension or stay before 
the issuing court or the relevant appellate/higher court.
46.	 In a nutshell, the conclusions reached in this Judgement are as follows:
a.	
The High Court did not have the power to direct the State 
Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice 
pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the 
High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to 
frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, 
the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the 
power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it 
on the administrative side. 
b.	
The power of criminal contempt could not be invoked by the High 
Court against officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 
the ground that the application for recall of the First Impugned 
Order was ‘contemptuous’. The actions of the officials do not 
meet the standard of both
‘criminal contempt’ and ‘civil contempt’.
c.	
The conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning 
government officials to exert pressure on the government, under 
the threat of contempt, is impermissible. Summoning officials 
repeatedly, instead of relying on the law officers representing the 
government or the submissions of the government on affidavit, 
runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution.
d.	
The SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials 
in Court Proceedings framed by this Court in Para 45 of this 
Judgement must be followed by all courts across the country. 
All High Courts shall consider framing rules to regulate the 
appearance of Government officials in court, after taking into 
account the SOP which has been formulated above.

240
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
47.	 Both the Impugned Orders dated 4 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 
are set aside and the appeals are disposed of. The High Court is 
at liberty to hear the writ petition, in view of the observations made 
in this judgement. 
48.	 The Registry is directed to communicate the judgment to the Registrar 
General of every High Court. 
49.	 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: Appeals 
disposed of.