In a notable shift toward modernizing legal procedures, the Supreme Court has advocated for the virtual appearance of government officers in court proceedings, marking a departure from the traditional insistence on physical presence.
Critiquing the commonplace practice of High Courts mandating in-person appearances of government officials, the apex court emphasized the preference for virtual appearances, especially in instances where the presence of such officers is deemed necessary.
Drawing from the procedural guidelines outlined in the precedent-setting case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors., the bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, underscored the need for adaptability in legal proceedings. It highlighted the provision that, in exceptional circumstances warranting the presence of a government officer, the initial appearance should be facilitated through video conferencing.
The court’s decision also overturned a specific directive issued by the Calcutta High Court, which mandated the personal presence of the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Police without adequately justifying the necessity for such attendance.
“We further find that the reasons recorded by the High Court for directing the personal presence of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be exceptional or rare,” remarked the court, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion guided by sound reasoning.
Moreover, the court emphasized the significance of transparently documenting the rationale behind summoning government officials to court, highlighting the need for clarity and justification in such decisions.
This stance by the Supreme Court aligns with its earlier rebuke of the routine summoning of government officers by High Courts, as articulated in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma case. In that instance, the court admonished the practice, stressing the adverse impact on public interest and the efficiency of government functions.
“We feel it is time to reiterate that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily,” the court stated, elucidating the detrimental effects on both the officers’ responsibilities and the broader administration of justice.
In light of these developments, the legal landscape stands poised for a more streamlined and technologically enabled approach, heralding a new era where the principles of efficiency and public interest intersect harmoniously within the realm of legal proceedings.
