J&K: HC adopts SoP for appearance of government officials in court proceedings
Jammu, Mar 26 (PTI) Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Justice Tashi Rabstan on Wednesday issued new guidelines by adopting a standard operating procedures (SOP) for the appearance of government officials in court proceedings.
Under the new guidelines, officials need not stand throughout the hearing unless they are speaking, and the court is expected to avoid comments on their appearance or background, an notification issued on Wednesday stated.
The SOP aim to streamline how officials attend court, following guidelines set by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued SOPs regarding the appearance of government servants, directing all high courts to frame guidelines and rules for summoning and the appearance of employees before the courts within their respective jurisdictions, Registrar General of the High Court, Shahzad Azeem, said in the notification.
Therefore, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has adopted the SOP, it said.
The SOP mandates that government officials may first appear via video conferencing, with the court sending the necessary links and details at least a day in advance.
“Before directing personal presence, the court should allow, as a first option, the officer to appear through video conferencing, except in exceptional cases where in-person appearance is necessary,” the SOP said.
The SOP further clarifies that if physical presence is required, the court must provide reasons in advance and ensure officials are notified promptly.
“This would enable the official to come prepared and assist the court properly in adjudicating the matter for which they have been summoned,” it added.
During court appearances, officials are encouraged to sit unless speaking, with the court expected to maintain professionalism and avoid remarks on appearance or background.
“Government officials participating in proceedings need not stand throughout the hearing. Standing should be required only when the official is responding to or making statements in court,” it says.
“The court must refrain from making comments on the physical appearance, educational background, or social standing of the official appearing before it,” the SOP states.
The SOP also advises courts to consider the complexity of government policies when setting compliance deadlines and allow reasonable extensions when necessary.
Regarding the nature of evidence, the SOP categorizes court proceedings into three types including evidence-based adjudication.
“These involve documentary or oral evidence, where a government official may be required to be physically present for testimony or to present relevant documents”, it said.
On summary proceedings, it said that these rely on affidavits, documents, or reports and are typically governed by the High Court’s rules and principles of natural justice.
On non-adversarial proceedings, it further said that in such cases, the court may require officials to clarify complex policies or technical matters that government law officers may not be able to address.
The SOP states that physical presence should not be directed as a routine measure unless necessary. However, if a court believes specific information is being withheld or misrepresented, it may direct an official’s appearance.
“The court should not direct an official’s presence solely because their affidavit differs from the court’s view. If the matter can be resolved based on existing records, it should be decided on merit accordingly,” it adds.
With regard of compliance with judicial orders, the SOP emphasizes that compliance with judicial orders involving intricate policy matters requires navigating multiple levels of government decision-making.
“The court must consider these complexities before establishing specific timelines for compliance. It should accommodate a reasonable time frame, depending on the specifics of the case,” it said.
On the issue of personal presence in contempt proceedings, the SOP advises courts to exercise caution and restraint when initiating contempt proceedings.
“In contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of an order, the court should ordinarily issue a notice to the alleged contemnor, seeking an explanation instead of immediately directing personal presence,” it said.
After issuing a notice, the court should carefully consider the response before deciding the next course of action. “Depending on the severity of the allegation, the court may direct the personal presence of the contemnor.”
In cases of non-compliance, the SOP advises courts to consider procedural delays or technical reasons before taking action.
“If the original order lacks a specified compliance timeframe, the court should consider granting an extension to facilitate compliance,” it said.
When an order has a set compliance deadline and difficulties arise, the court should allow the contemnor to submit an application for an extension or stay before the issuing court or a relevant appellate court, it adds.
