On Thursday, April 20, the Supreme Court put a stay on the Allahabad High Court order to take the state’s Secretary (Finance) Shahid Manzoor Abbas Rizvi and Special Secretary (Finance) Saryu Prasad Mishra into custody.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narsimha also ordered the immediate release of the two officials who were taken into custody over non-compliance with the High Court order to provide domestic helps and other facilities for the retired judges.
The UP Government’s urgent notice was made before the Supreme Court bench by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who described the High Court’s ruling as “unprecedented”. The Supreme Court bench thereafter issued the order. The bailable warrant issued by the High Court in the contempt matter for the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) of the UP Government was also stayed by the Supreme Court bench.
CJI Chandrachud while pronouncing the order said, “Taken on board. The orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated 04 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 shall remain stayed until the next date of listing. The bench further directed that the Supreme Court registrar-general notify the high court registrar-general of the order. The next hearing on the matter is scheduled to be held on Friday.
Allahabad High Court order
On April 4, 2023, the state government was ordered by the high court to implement/notify Rules/Guidelines established by the Chief Justice for providing benefits, including domestic help, to retired judges. However, the court stated on Wednesday that the officers did not comply with the April 4 directive.
The officers were taken into custody by the Allahabad High Court after the Association of Retired Supreme and High Court Judges filed a contempt plea. On Wednesday, a division bench of the High Court composed of Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar took the officers, who were present in court, into custody and ordered them to be brought on Thursday for the filing of charges after observing that they were in contempt of the orders.
The high court ruled that the officer had omitted crucial facts and misled the court; as a result, it held them prima facie liable for contempt of court and issued an arrest warrant. But the concerned officials approached the Supreme Court.
