New Guidelines Emphasize Dignity, Video Hearings, and Professional Conduct
Jammu, March 26 – Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has introduced a new set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to regulate the appearance of government officials in court proceedings. The move, formalized through a notification on Wednesday, aims to ensure a dignified, professional, and efficient process in line with Supreme Court directives.
Officials Allowed to Sit, Avoid Unnecessary Summons
According to the SOP, government officials are no longer required to stand throughout court proceedings. They are expected to rise only when speaking or responding to the court. Furthermore, judges have been advised to refrain from making any remarks about an official’s physical appearance, educational qualifications, or social background.
Video Conferencing Preferred Over Physical Appearance
The guidelines underscore that video conferencing should be the first option when summoning officials. Courts are required to provide video links and relevant information at least one day prior to the hearing. Physical appearance should only be mandated in exceptional situations, and if required, reasons must be communicated well in advance.
“Before directing personal presence, the court should allow, as a first option, the officer to appear through video conferencing,” the SOP states.
Categorization of Court Proceedings
The SOP distinguishes between three types of court proceedings:
- Evidence-Based Adjudication – Where oral or documentary evidence is involved, and an official may need to appear physically to testify or submit documents.
- Summary Proceedings – Decided primarily on affidavits and reports, governed by High Court rules and principles of natural justice.
- Non-Adversarial Proceedings – Where officials may be needed to clarify complex policy matters that government legal officers might not be equipped to address fully.
Reasonable Compliance Timelines
Recognizing the layered decision-making process in government functioning, the High Court has urged judges to consider the complexity of policy matters before setting deadlines for compliance with judicial orders. Reasonable time extensions should be provided when warranted.
SOPs on Contempt Proceedings
The SOP encourages courts to show restraint while handling contempt cases. If an official is accused of willful disobedience, the court should first issue a notice seeking explanation rather than immediately ordering personal appearance. Further steps should depend on the severity of the case and the explanation received.
Emphasis on Procedural Fairness
In instances of delayed compliance, courts have been directed to take into account potential procedural or technical delays. If no specific compliance timeline was mentioned in the original order, officials may request additional time or seek a stay from the issuing or appellate court.
The adoption of these SOPs marks a significant shift towards making court proceedings more accessible and respectful for government functionaries. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has aligned itself with the Supreme Court’s approach to judicial decorum and administrative efficiency.
Last updated by a enewsx:
