LI Network
Published on: January 5, 2024 at 18:05 IST
The Supreme Court, overturned the Allahabad High Court’s directives to take two Uttar Pradesh Government Secretaries into custody for alleged non-compliance with orders on retired judges’ facilities.
The apex court explicitly stated that High Court Chief Justices, in their administrative capacity, lack the authority to supplant the executive’s rulemaking responsibility.
In a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, the Court emphasized that policymaking involves multiple considerations, including local and financial aspects.
It highlighted that the High Court, within its judicial powers, cannot coerce the State Government into enacting rules proposed by the Chief Justice.
The issue stemmed from two orders issued by the Allahabad High Court on April 4 and April 19, 2023. The court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice regarding ‘Domestic Help to Former Chief Justices and Former Judges of the Allahabad High Court.‘ Failure to comply led to specific officials’ summons and later criminal contempt proceedings against state officials.
The apex court stayed these orders on April 20, 2023, taking up the matter to address the High Court’s authority in directing the State Government to enact rules concerning post-retiral benefits for High Court judges.
Interpreting Article 229(2) of the Constitution, the court underscored that the Chief Justice’s rule proposals pertain to High Court ‘officers and servants,’ requiring the Governor’s approval for rules on salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions.
It clarified that Article 229(2) does not encompass judges (sitting or retired) and Chief Justices lack the authority to frame rules regarding their post-retiral benefits.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s broad interpretation of previous judgments, clarifying that these judgments did not grant Chief Justices administrative powers to frame mandatory rules for former judges’ post-retiral benefits.
It highlighted that the High Court’s conduct under Article 226 cannot compel the executive to exercise rule-making power, emphasizing the separation of powers envisioned in the Constitution.
Consequently, the Court ruled that such rules, made beyond the Chief Justice’s competence, could at best be considered inputs to the State Government’s decision-making apparatus.
Therefore, the High Court, in its judicial capacity, overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 226 by pressuring the State Government to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice.
The State Government was advised to consider the desirability of these rules within its decision-making framework, independent of judicial compulsion.