Contempt of Courts in India

Dr. S.NATARAJUChairman, PG. Department of Law

J.S.S Law College, AutonomousMysore

Legislative History of Contempt of Court

• First attempt at a comprehensive legislation-Contempt of Courts Act, 1926

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1952

• Genesis of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• On 1st April, 1960 Sri Bibhuti Bhushan Das Guptaintroduced in the Lok Sabha a Bill to consolidate andamend the law relating to contempt of courts.

• Ministry of Law on 29th July, 1961 set up a committeeunder the chairmanship of Sri H.N. Sayal.

Statement of Objects and Reasons

• Need for safeguarding the status and dignity ofcourts and interests of administration of justice

• The recommendations of the committee have beengenerally accepted by the government afterconsidering the view expressed on thoserecommendations by the state governments, unionterritory administrations, the Supreme Court, thehigh courts and the judicial commissioners.

Definitions on contempt of Court

Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicialproceedings must of necessity result in hampering of the administration ofLaw and in interfering with the due course of justice. This necessarilyconstitutes contempt of court.

Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any conduct that tends tobring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregardor to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation.

Halsbury defines contempt as consisting of words spoken or written whichobstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice.

Black Odgers enunciates that it is contempt of court to publish wordswhich tend to bring the administration of Justice into contempt, toprejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which is the subject of Civil orCriminal proceeding or in anyway to obstruct the cause of Justice.

Unique position of Judiciary in Administration of Justice

• Role of courts and judges in modern times

• Need for maintaining independence of judiciary

• Need to respect status and decisions of judiciary

• Duty of all authorities in India to assist the courts in executing their orders

• Full faith and credit clause in the Constitution

• Possibility of willful disobedience of courts’ orders

• Tendency to lower image of judiciary

Contempt of Court – Position Under the Constitution

• Constitution of India –Article 129: Supreme Court to be a court ofrecord.—The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have allthe powers of such a court including the power to punish for contemptof itself.

• Article 215: High Courts to be courts of record.—Every High Court shallbe a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a courtincluding the power to punish for contempt of itself.

• Article 144: Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the SupremeCourt.—All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall actin aid of the Supreme Court.

• Article 141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on allcourts.— The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on allcourts within the territory of India.

Contempt of Court – Position Under the Constitution

• Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and ordersas to discovery, etc.— (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdictionmay pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing completejustice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed ororder so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in suchmanner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and,until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the Presidentmay by order prescribe.

• Article 261: (1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory ofIndia to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and ofevery State.

• Refer: Cauvery Issue in Karnataka

The Contempt of Courts Act,1971

Under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of CourtsAct,1971 defines contempt of court as civilcontempt or criminal contempt.

The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touchesupon two important fundamental rights of thecitizens, namely,

• the right to personal liberty

• the right to freedom of expression.

A. Civil Contempt: Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt ofCourts Act,1971 civil contempt has been defined as wilfuldisobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writor other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertakinggiven to a court

B. Criminal Contempt : Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of

Courts Act,1971 criminal contempt has been defined as thepublication (whether by words, spoken or written, or bysigns, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of anymatter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

Kinds of Court of Contempt

Criminal Contempt contd.,

(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers ortends to lower the authority of, any court, or

(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere withthe due course of any judicial proceeding, or

(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs ortends to obstruct, the administration of justice in anyother manner.

Refer: Sri .AK Subbaiah episode(not reported)

Essentials elements of Contempt

The elements generally needed to establish a

contempt are:

1. The making of a valid court order,

2. Knowledge of the order by respondent,

3. Ability of the respondent to render

compliance, and

4. Wilful disobedience of the order

The Contempt of Courts Act,1971-Some exceptions

• Innocent publication and distribution of matter – not contempt (Sec.3)

• Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding – not contempt (Sec 4)

• Fair criticism of judicial act - not contempt(Sec.5)

• Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt- in respect of any statement made by him in good faith (Sec.6)

• Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera - not contempt except in certain cases (Sec 7 )

• Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt (Sec 9.)-Due regard to Constitutional Provisions

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Contempt

• A civil contempt is one where the dispute is entirely between private parties which does not threaten the proper administration of justice.

• A criminal contempt is one where because of the nature of the conduct in question, the issues transcend the interests of the parties, and the public has an interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice.

Power of the High Courts

• Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself :

• Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.(45 of 1860) [Sec.10]

Power of the High Courts

Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction (Sec.11)

• Punishment for contempt of court

• 1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. :

• Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

• Explanation.-An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. [Sec.12]

Limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings

• The Limitation period for actions of contempt is a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed [u/S. 20 of the Act ]

Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. –

• (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-

• (a) the Advocate-General, or

• (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate

• General

• (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. [Sec.15]

Procedure after cognizance

• Procedure after cognizance. (1) Notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise [Sec.17]

• Procedure to decide Contempt of Court:

• Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches.

• (1) Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. [Sec 18 ]

Appeals

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single

Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court ;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court : [Sec. 19]

Limitation for Appeal :• An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed-

• (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days ;

• (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days,

• from the date of the order appealed against. [Sec 19 (4) ]

Contempt of Courts - Some leading Cases

1) M.B. SANGHI, ADVOCATE v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [AIR 1991 SC 1834:1991( 3 )SCC 600] -Unable to secure an ad-interim stay in favour of his client, the appellant, a practicing Advocate, uttered certain words imputing motives to the Sub-Judge in refusing to grant the stay.-Had the effect of scandalizing the Court and impairing confidence of public in Court--Hence guilty of contempt Apology-Tendering of--Not to serve as mere defense against rigors of law- Should reflect remorse and contrition of contemnor- Tendering 'unqualified apology' in case Court finds him guilty--Not sincere-Contemnor addicted to use of contemptuous language against Judges and tendering apology--Apology used merely a device to escape--Not to be accepted--Use of contempt jurisdiction against erring members of legal profession- Courts are slow in the hope that Bar Councils will take care to maintain ethical norms-Decline in ethical values in the profession-Arrest of- Timely action by Bar Councils- Need for -held- “It is well-settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.”

DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [AIR 1991 SC 2176 :1991 SCC (4) 406]

• Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, Gujarat--Assaulted, arrestedon flimsy grounds, handcuffed, tied with rope, photographstaken and published by Police Officers--Held constituted clearcase of criminal contempt--Contemnors-punishment--Quantum of punishment determined according to degreeand extent of part played by each contemnor--Guidelineslaid down by Supreme Court in case of arrest and detentionof a Judicial Officer--To be followed by State Governments aswell as High Courts--Judicial Officer not to visit PoliceStation—Except in connection with official and judicialduties and with prior intimation to District and SessionsJudge.

MOHD. ASLAM OBHURE v. UNION OF INDIA &STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.[ AIR 1995 SC 548:1994( 6 )SCC 442]

Willful disobedience of order of Court-Babri MasjidCase-Undertaking given by Chief Minister of a Stateboth in his personal capacity and on behalf Of hisGovernment- Flagrant breach of undertaking-Personal element shown in act of disobedience oforder of Courts- Reasonable steps not taken toprevent violation of order of court-Chief Minister ofthe State convicted of an offence: of Contempt ofCourts-Sentence of imprisonment of one day withfine of Rs. 2,000 imposed.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION [1995 SCC (3) 507]

• Respondents violating directions of Court- Also filing suit inHigh Court in respect of same subject matter regarding whichtheir special leave petition had been dismissed -Suo Motunotice to respondents by Court-Contemnors tenderingapology-Held, respondents' actions amounted to Contemptof Court- Apology is not a weapon of defense forged topurge guilt of offences -Contemnors sentenced to simpleimprisonment-However, sentence deferred subject toconditions.

• HELD –“ Abuse of the process of court calculated to hamperthe due course of judicial proceeding or the orderlyadministration of justice is a contempt of court.”

IN RE: 1. SHRI SANJIV DATTA, DEPUTY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING [1995 SCC (3) 619]

• Suo moto contempt notice issued to a public servant and his advocates- Affidavit filed in the Supreme Court containing allegations against the Court- Allegations made with intention of casting aspersions on the Court and attributing motives to it- Accusing the Court of making mockery of established policy of Government of India by permitting a foreign agency to undertake broadcasting from India against national interest thereby undermining sovereignty of the nation-Unconditional apology of public servant not accepted-Allegations made by the contemnor were intentional- Made with full knowledge of its grave implications and therefore has potentiality of mischief-If not curbed firmly, may assume proportion grave enough to sabotage the rule of law. Unconditional apology of advocates- Accepted for want of knowledge of allegations.

( Officers-let your mind and not the heart speak)

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY v. STATE OF ASSAM [AIR 1996 SC 2193:1995(3)SCR 943:1995(3)SCC 743]

Constitution of India-Arts 14, 19, 21 and 32-Rights ofunder-trial prisoners- Safe custody- Use of fetters-Not permissible- Handcuffs not to be forced on aprisoner -No authority with police and jail authoritiesto direct handcuffing of any inmate- Magistrate maygrant permission to handcuff prisoner -PublicInterest Litigation. Contempt of CourtsAct-Handcuffing of under-trial prisoners-Directionsgiven by this Court-Mandate to be followed bypolice, jail authorities and by subordinate judiciary-Binding directions issued.

DHANANJAY SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [1995 (3) SCR 964]

Criminal contempt-Illegal detention of detenues by police officials in ranksof SP, DSP and SHO-Habeas Corpus petition filed in Supreme Court- Policeofficials filing false affidavits and giving false statements in Court- Besides,DSP and SHO effectively pressurising one of detenues to file false affidavitand give false statement in Court-Even after report of C.B.I. establishingfactum of illegal detention of detenu by police personnel, latter filing falseaffidavits in Court denying the facts- Held swearing of false affidavits in acourt of law amounts to criminal contempt as it has not only the tendencyof causing obstruction in due course of judicial proceedings, but also toimpede, obstruct or interfere with administration of justice- SP, DSP andSHO punished for committing contempt of Court-Their apologies rejectedbeing not apologies of truly repentant persons but made with a view toescape punishment-Conduct of Secretary, Department of Home in notfiling affidavit in response to Court's direction disapproved-DirectorGeneral of Police warned to be careful in future- Apologies tendered bythese two, being genuine and bona fide, accepted.

Supreme Court drops contempt case against former army chief General VK Singh

• The Supreme Court dropped a contempt case against former army chief General VK Singh after he offered an "unqualified apology" for his remarks following the top court's verdict in the age row with the Centre.

"If an apology is coming from the heart, contempt proceedings should not continue even for a second," the Supreme Court said.

Earlier this week, General Singh had withdrawn all statements made by him on the judiciary.

November 20, 2013 15:12 IST

C.K.Daphtary v/s O.P.Gupta 1971 1 SCC 626

The respondent published and circulated a booklet in publicpurporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shahwhile acting in his judicial capacity. The petitioner alleged thatthe booklet has scandalized the judges who participated indecision and brought into contempt the authority of thehighest court of the land and thus weakened the confidenceof the people in it.

The Supreme Court laid down the test in each case is whetherthe impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on thejudge or whether it will interfere with the due course ofjustice or the proper administration of law by the court.

Eighteen people including four top functionaries of the West Bengalgovernment have been convicted for contempt of court after no actionwas taken to help resume work in the New Jalpaiguri District Court.

The Calcutta High Court sentenced the Director General of Police, DistrictMagistrate and Superintendent of Police of Jalpaiguri District to sixmonths imprisonment for criminal contempt of court.

• The three faced the court's ire along with 15 others for the "constitutionalbreakdown" in the district during an agitation demanding setting up of acircuit bench of the High Court there.

• Court proceedings were stalled for almost a month due to the protest. Thebench observed that even after its order, the officers did not act toremove obstructions and road blocks, which were dismantled by theprotestors themselves.

• After almost a month of inaction, the High Court took suo motocognizance and convicted 18 people. However, the court has stayed theconviction for the next three weeks.

Contd.,

• The court directed that apart from the six months' simple imprisonment,they would have to undergo another one month's imprisonment if theyfail to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.In a scathing indictment of the statepolice chief A B Vohra, the court observed that he had not cared to evenmonitor the situation in Jalpaiguri or ask his officers to restore normalcydespite specific directions to that effect by the High Court.

• Observing that Vohra and the district police officers had committed thecrime of letting the protestors hold the Constitution and fundamentalrights of people to ransom for a month, the bench said that it was notexpected for the police chief to say in his reply that no law and orderproblem was created as the agitation was peaceful.

Contempt of Court

• Justice Gyan Sudha Misra responds to Dhananjay Mahapatra; says irresponsible and contemptuous reporting by TOI

• Contempt of court charges against SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan

• Contempt of court plea against Raj Thackeray

• T. R. Dhananjaya vs J. Vasudevan on 25 August, 1995

Rise in contempt of court cases irks Madras high court

• CHENNAI: Expressing shock and anguish at the steep rise inthe number of contempt of court cases and instances of non-compliance of court orders, the Madras high court has askedthe central as well as state governments to devise amechanism to curb disobedience of court rulings.

•

Justice N Kirubakaran, the bureaucracy for its 'remarkableunwillingness and apathy', pointed out that the number ofcontempt of court cases, which was just 421 in 1990 had shotup to more than 2,900 in 2011 and 2,434 in 2012."Disobedience of orders of courts strikes at the very root ofthe rule of law on which the judicial system rests," heobserved.

Thank You

The Role of Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers:

Writing Para-wise remarks, administering

the Oath and its implications

Dr. S.NATARAJU

Chairman, PG Dept of Law

J.S.S. Law College, Autonomous

Mysore-570023

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers..

• Government is the biggest litigant in the state. Ithas to arrange for the conduct of prosecution inCriminal cases before the Magistrate's courts andSessions Courts.

• There is considerable Civil Litigation not only inthe Supreme Court, High Courts and LowerCourts in the State but also in Courts outside theState.

• The conduct of litigation is governed by theKarnataka conduct of Government LitigationRules, 1985(Amended Rules, 1997)

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers..

• The National Litigation Policy; based on therecognition that Government and its variousagencies are the pre-dominant litigants in courtsand Tribunals in the country.

• Its aim is to transform Government into anEfficient and Responsible litigant.

• The responsibility of the Government to protectthe rights of citizens, to respect fundamentalrights and those in charge of the conduct ofGovernment litigation should never forget thisbasic principle.

litigation conducting officer.,

• "litigation conducting officer in relation to a

case“ means the officer who is placed in charge of

the conduct of litigation in such case. (Rule 2.(5) of the

Karnataka conduct of Government Litigation Rules, 1985)

• “Law Officer" means a law officer as defined in the Karnataka

Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules,

1977 and includes an Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of

civil litigation work in a Court;

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers..

“Efficient litigant” means

• Focusing on the core issues involved in the litigationand addressing them squarely.

• Managing and conducting litigation in a cohesive,coordinated and time-bound manner.

• Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are notneedlessly persevered with.

• A litigant who is represented by competent andsensitive legal persons: competent in their skills andsensitive to the facts that Government is not an ordinarylitigant and that a litigation does not have to be won atany cost.

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers..

“Responsible Litigant” means

• That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake oflitigating.

• That false pleas and technical points will not be takenand shall be discouraged.

• Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevantdocuments will be placed before the court.

• That nothing will be suppressed from the court andthere will be no attempt to mislead any court orTribunal.

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers

Litigators on behalf of Government:

• Have to keep in mind the principles incorporated in the National

mission for judicial reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks

which the Government and its agencies may be concerned with and

also removing unnecessary Government cases.

• The initiative undertaken by the Government of India to frame a

National Litigation Policy with a view to ensure conduct of

responsible litigation by the Central Government and urges every

State Government to evolve similar policies.

• The Stakeholders: The Ministry of Law & Justice, Heads of

various Departments, Law Officers and Government Counsel, and

individual officers all connected with the concerned litigation.

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers

Government of Karnataka Law Department divisions are;

(1] Administration, [2] Litigation, [3] Opinion, [4] Cauvery Water Dispute Cell, [5] Receipt and Issue, [6] Library)

• Administration division: The main functions are; Appointment of Law Officers, Special Counsels for conduct of State litigation within the state, outside state and Supreme Court,

• Appointment of Notaries, Official Receivers, Administrator General and Official Trustee, etc.,

contd.,

Other matters;

• Office of the Advocate General

• Subordinate Judiciary

• Department of Prosecutions and government Litigations

• Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

• Internal matters relating to the Law Department and co-ordination matters

• Grants to Bar Associations in the State

• As a Nobel Department in matters of Human rightsCommission.

(Three Additional Secretaries are in charge of the litigation matters & they are assisted by one Solicitor + 2 additional Solicitors & Four Assistant Solicitors)

Contd.,• All the Judgments in Criminal Cases resulting in

discharge or acquittal are reviewed by the Director ofProsecutions and Government Litigation andrecommendations are made to Law Department inregard to filing or non-filing of Appeals. Necessaryproposals and the connected records are forwarded tothis Department.

• The recommendations of the Director will be considered by this Department and decisions in regard to filing or non-filing of Appeals are taken after review of the Judgments. (Governed by the Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) (Amendment) Rules, 1997 have been published in Notification No. DCA 21 ARB 96, dated 25th February 1997)

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers

• All Notices, either of the suit or a Writ petition issuedto the Chief Secretary to Government, are takenservices by the Solicitor in the Law Department, Thereafter, the Law Officers are authorized to appear beforethe courts concerned.

• On receipt of the remarks of the concernedAdministrative Department on the allegations made inthe plaint or in the Writ Petition concerned, the LawOfficers prepare a draft Written Statement or CounterAffidavit, as the case may be, which will be examinedfrom legal aspect and whenever necessary, they arerevised or re-drafted by the Law Officers and thereafterthey will be approved by the officers of LawDepartment or by Heads of Legal Cells.

Public Servants as Litigation Conducting Officers

• Government have directed that the matter of preferring anAppeal or Review against the order of the KarnatakaAdministrative Tribunal or Central Administrative Tribunal oragainst any decision of the High Court in Writ or Writ Appealand connected matters, issue of authorization to Law officersare to be dealt by concerned Administrative Departments.

• In pursuance to the current policy of the Government tosimplify the Acts and Rules that are being administered by theGovernment Departments, action is being taken to constitute acommittee comprising of senior officers of Law Department toexamine and suggest suitable amendments to the Acts andRules administered by Law Department.

Statutory Notice

• Heads of Departments, DCs officers who receive

Notices of suits under section 80 of CPC obtain Para-

wise remarks of the concerned officers and forward

them to the concerned Administrative Departments of

the Secretariat.

(Exceptions: Statutory Corporations/Writ petitions )

• The Administrative Departments examine and

forward the same to this Department which furnishes

opinion whether or not to contest the claim.

OPINION DIVISION: Functions

• Advising different Departments of the KarnatakaGovernment Secretariat on legal mattersincluding interpretation of the provisions of theConstitution, various statutes Rules, orders

• Scrutiny of orders, Notices, Rules (Other thanSubordinate Legislation) to be issued inaccordance with the legal opinion furnished bythe Department

• Scrutiny of instruments relating to immovableproperties, bonds and other agreements, contractsor instruments to be executed either by or infavour of Government.

Duties & responsibities of a litigation

conducting Officer

Furnish the following particulars to the Counsel or

Government pleader as the case may be;

• history of the case;

• facts and circumstances which necessitates the institution of the case;

• the date when and the place where the cause of action arose;

• nature and particulars of the claim;

Contd.,

• A clear statement of all the evidence ,both oral and

documentary by which the claim can be supported indicating

the relevant provisions of the enactment, rules, circular,

notification and the like under which the claim is

maintainable).

• Copies of the documents, if any, upon which the claim is based

and other documents including rules, notifications, orders,

circulars and the like, inspection of which is considered

necessary for a proper elucidation of the case;

• objections, if any, which may be or have been urged by the

proposed defendants against the claim;

Contd,.

• Evidence, both oral and documentary, which may or is likely

to be pressed into service by the proposed defendants against

the claim;

• the financial status or position of the person against whom the

case is proposed to be filed; (this is to know whether in the

case of a money suit it is possible to obtain satisfaction of the

decree that may be passed against him);

• where the proposed case is for recovery of money, whether

the institution of the case is necessary notwithstanding the fact

that the possibility of the recovery is doubtful, if so the

reasons, therefor;

Contd.,

• Particulars of earlier litigation, if any, between the parties and the result thereof;

• particulars of earlier litigation, if any, involving similar questions and the result thereof; and

• Any special ground or grounds, which render the filling of the case necessary and the consequences of not filing the case;

• The order sanctioning the filing of a case shall specify the officer who is conversant with the facts of the case, the litigation conducting officer for the case, the officer who shall verify and sign the pleadings including applications on behalf of the Government and the name of the law officer. The order shall also indicate briefly the grounds for instituting the case and the case of the Government and the date within which the case should be filed in the court.

Role of Litigation Officer

• The litigation conducting officer shall, give necessary instructions and get a draft plaint or petition prepared by the law officer concerned and submit the same to [the legal cell]1for approval.

• 1[The Legal Cell]1 shall, examine the draft and ensure thatall pleas both legal and factual are pleaded and afterscrutiny, forward the approved plaint or petition to thelitigation conducting officer who shall get it signed andverified by the officer who is authorized to sign and verifythe pleading and thereafter entrust the same along withrequired number of copies thereof to the law officerconcerned for presentation before the court well within thedate if any, indicated in the sanction order issued under sub-rule (7) or within the period of limitation.

contd.,

• The litigation conducting officer shall regularly watch theprogress of the case and shall give necessary instructionsto the law officer to whom the case is entrusted at allstages till the final disposal of the case.

• Before instructing the law officer, wherever necessary, heshall obtain the order of his official superior or any higherofficer in such manner as he considers fit.

• The law officer shall periodically intimate the progressmade in the case to 1[the Legal Cell]1 and in respect of acase before a Court of Munsiff to the Director ofProsecutions and Government Litigation.

Para-Wise remarks & Oaths implications

• COURT RELATED MATTERS: PROCESSING OF GOVT. CASES

• ENGAGEMENT OF LAWYER

• LAWYER’S BRIEF

• CASE RECORD

• IMPLEMENTATION OF COURTS’ ORDER

• Guidelines for Nodal Officers/staff for preparing consolidated and Para-wise comments in Court cases of civil nature against the State.

Oaths implications• The Oaths Act, 1969• The persons who may administer oaths to deponents

must be duly authorized under section 139 of the CivilProcedure Code to do so

• The following courts and persons shall have power toadminister, by themselves, or subject to the provisions ofsub-section (2) of section 6, by an officer empowered bythem in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in dischargeof the duties imposed or in exercise of the powersconferred upon them by law, namely;

• 1. (a) all courts and persons having by law or consentof parties authority to receive evidence;

Oaths implications

(b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air force station orship occupied by the Armed Forces of the Union, provided that theoath or affirmation is administered within the limits of the station.

(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or byor under any other law for the time being in force, any court, Judge,Magistrate or person may administer oaths and affirmations for thepurpose of affidavits, if empowered in this behalf—

(a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicialproceedings, or

(b) by the State Government, in respect of other affidavits.4. Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreters and

jurors.—(1) Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons,

namely:—(a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined

or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court orperson having by law or consent of parties authority to examine suchpersons or to receive evidence;

(b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnessesOaths & Affidavit formats:

Thank You