Why Did 34 Tamil Nadu Civil Servants Appear in Madras High Court for Contempt? Was the Supreme Court SOP Ignored?

K ChandruJune 5 was a notable day when 34 members of the Indian civil service, of which 17 were collectors and the rest principal secretaries to the govt of Tamil Nadu, appeared before Madras high court after being summoned in contempt petitions initiated against them.This has never happened anywhere in India.After waiting all day and having their presence noted, they were sent off without any further proceedings. The petitions may perhaps be taken up for hearing on another day.This has created a buzz in the corridors of officialdom, with many viewing it as yet another punitive exercise imposed on officers for no fault of their own. Was it not possible for the court to first issue show-cause notices to determine whether a prima facie case of disobedience existed and, after considering the explanations, frame charges only against those officers who had intentionally disobeyed its orders?Could their presence not have been marked through video conferencing, especially when courts are expected to adopt a hybrid mode of hearing, combining physical and virtual appearances? This thoughtless exercise resulted in the loss of substantial govt man-hours, with little productive work accomplished that day.In one of the cases that day, a collector who had been directed to appear was no longer holding charge of the district concerned. Having already been posted to another district, she was informed that her personal presence was mandatory. She flew to Chennai, waited the entire day in court, marked her presence, obtained an order dispensing with her future appearance, and then returned to her new district to resume her duties.Similar experiences may have been faced by the other officers who were summoned to appear as part of what appeared to be a mechanical exercise.Even when govt officers appear on summons, there is no guarantee their cases will be taken up immediately or that they will be provided suitable seating in court while awaiting proceedings. It is not as though there are no guidelines for such situations. Supreme Court laid down a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for court proceedings involving govt officials in 2024.Supreme Court’s SOP issued in 2024 directed that govt officials be summoned in person only where there is prima facie evidence of information being withheld or misrepresented, that video conferencing should be the first option for appearance, and that courts should, wherever possible, assign specific time slots for matters requiring personal attendance.Why did the High Court not adhere to the SOP issued by SC in exercise of its powers under Article 142, which is binding on all courts?On one occasion, while travelling to the Madurai Bench, I found five principal secretaries to the govt on the same flight, all heading to Madurai in connection with contempt proceedings. Some spoke of the burden of being repeatedly summoned for different cases. One said she had travelled to Madurai three times that week to attend court proceedings.Does this mean there has been a significant increase in intentional disobedience by govt officers, necessitating their personal appearance before the court to offer explanations and, if those explanations are found unsatisfactory, face punishment? The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was enacted to deal with intentional disobedience of court orders.Even when directions are issued to govt officers, they may challenge the order before a division bench, seek a review before the same bench, or apply for an extension of time to comply with the directions. The exercise of such legal remedies cannot, by itself, amount to contempt. Nor does it require their presence in court.In most contempt proceedings, the original cases are disposed of at the admission stage, after the govt advocate or pleader is asked to take notice and certain directions are issued. In many cases, the relevant information may not even have been communicated to the officer concerned. By the time the order is received by post, the officer becomes aware of the matter, and the directions are issued, the litigant may have filed a contempt petition. Notices are then issued requiring the officer’s presence on the first day of the hearing.Though contempt jurisdiction is only to uphold the majesty of the court, such petitions are often filed as a means of enforcing orders obtained in the litigant’s favour. While civil courts have the power to execute their own decrees, similar powers have not been conferred on the high court to execute orders given in a writ jurisdiction. The result is a mushrooming of contempt petitions, creating the impression that govts, which are party to most of these cases, are unwilling to comply with court orders.I have heard the maximum number of contempt petitions during my short tenure and found that, while most were styled as contempt proceedings, their real purpose was often to secure the implementation of the original order.High court orders also often do not indicate which officer among the array of respondents is responsible for implementation. Unlike civil courts, which issue decrees containing operative directions in addition to judgments, writ orders often lack a clear mechanism for implementation. Many times, not all the parties arrayed in the writ petition were directly involved in the case, yet they were still summoned.Some years ago, the Madurai bench of Madras HC, while dealing with a contempt matter, took exception to two different benches passing conflicting orders, after which an officer was summoned for contempt proceedings. Referring to the episode in the Tamil epic Silappathikaram in which Kannagi burned Madurai for the wrongful act of the king, the court expressed its dismay and asked, “How many more times is Madurai going to burn because of such wrongful orders?”There is growing discontent among govt officers, who are expected to attend to their day-to-day responsibilities and implement court orders in accordance with the rule of law and, wherever legal difficulties arise, seek legal advice and take remedial action.In such circumstances, courts are expected to understand the practical limitations of the govt machinery and adopt a fair procedure while initiating contempt proceedings, or at the very least, scrupulously follow SC’s SOP. There is little purpose in lamenting that court orders are being flouted when, in reality, what is often sought is timely implementation of those orders rather than the restoration of the court’s majesty through frequent contempt proceedings.All organs of the state ultimately function for the common good and in the public interest.(The writer is a retired judge of Madras high court)