The Rajasthan High Court recently addressed a significant legal issue concerning the appointment of a Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General (AAG) and whether the state's inaction following the High Court's consultation constituted contempt of court. The matter arose when the High Court's Registrar General communicated the court's consent for appointing Advocate Brahmanand Sandu as AAG and Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Despite this, the state government did not issue the formal appointment order, prompting a single judge to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the state's authorities.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma, meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding the non-appointment. They observed that the issue at hand was fundamentally a service matter rather than a criminal one. The bench emphasized that the mere failure to act upon the High Court's consultation does not inherently amount to contempt. They clarified that while Section 24 of the CrPC mandates consultation with the High Court for such appointments, it does not render the state's subsequent inaction as contemptuous unless there is clear evidence of willful disobedience or derogatory conduct.
In their deliberation, the judges highlighted the importance of distinguishing between administrative oversights and actions that genuinely undermine the authority of the judiciary. They noted that the single judge's decision to treat the matter as a criminal writ petition and to issue notices to various state authorities, including directing the Principal Secretary of the Law & Legal Affairs Department to appear personally, was based on a prima facie view that the state's inaction was contemptuous. However, upon a more comprehensive review, the division bench concluded that such a perspective might not be justified in the absence of explicit contumacious behavior.
The court further elaborated that the process of appointing government advocates, even after the High Court's consultation, involves administrative discretion and procedural formalities. The absence of a formal appointment order, in this context, does not automatically translate to contempt unless it is accompanied by a deliberate intent to defy the court's authority. The judges underscored that public interest litigations are generally not maintainable in service matters, reinforcing the idea that the judiciary should exercise restraint in intervening in administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of legal or constitutional provisions.
Consequently, the division bench decided to close the suo motu criminal proceedings, stating that the situation did not warrant such action. They emphasized that while the High Court's consultation is a crucial step in the appointment process, the ultimate decision rests with the state government, and any delay or inaction, unless proven to be willfully contemptuous, should not be subjected to criminal proceedings. This judgment serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between judicial authority and administrative discretion, and the necessity for courts to carefully assess the intent and context behind administrative decisions before attributing contempt.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.