GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE
The Government of Punjab filed a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the Lahore High Court, which directed the Advocate-General to produce a letter of recommendation regarding the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should compel the production of confidential correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of the Province, and whether the Advocate-General was entitled to a further opportunity to argue against such production to protect the institution's dignity. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order, noting that the Government did not claim privilege over the document. However, acknowledging the Advocate-General's concern regarding the precedent of disclosing such sensitive administrative correspondence, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the Advocate-General should be granted a further opportunity to present his arguments before the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court itself is best positioned to balance the necessity of evidence production against the need to maintain the prestige and dignity of the judicial institution.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court regarding the production of documents?
- Does the production of administrative correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of a Province violate the dignity of the High Court?
- Is the Advocate-General entitled to a further opportunity to argue against an order requiring the production of official correspondence?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. --The Government of Punjab has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29th November, 1987 in Writ Petition No.4702 of 1987 filed by the respondents.
2. The crux of the grievance which led to the filing of the writ petition is that respondents Nos. 5 to 22 (in this petition) were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges in contravention of the relevant rules and total disregard of the recommendations made by the High Court.
3. Vide the impugned order dated 29th November, 1987 the learned Judge seized of the writ petition directed the Advocate-General Punjab to produce letter of recommendation ir. the following words:
4. "It appears to me that the perusal of the letter of recommendation is essential to the just decision of the case. The Advocate-General will therefore produce the recommendation letter in original or a copy thereof on 12-12-1987."
5. It is against this interim order that leave is sought by the petitioner.
6. We have heard the learned Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel for the caveators at considerable length.
7. In the first place this Court does not ordinarily interfere in interlocutory orders passed by the High Court. Secondly the learned Advocate-General has submitted that neither the Government nor the learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court who has the original recommendations with him) has any reluctance whatsoever to produce the aforementioned document. He also repeatedly expressed his willingness to produce the letter in question before this Court for perusal. It is, therefore, evident that the Government does not treat it to be a secret document. Nor has it claimed any privilege with regard to its production before the Court.
8. The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, categorically stated (on instructions) that the appointment of respondents Nos.5 to 22 had been made strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the High Court. He vehemently urged that his only worry was that such a communication between the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Executive of the Province, made by the former during the performance of his official duties has never been previously required to be produced in a Court of law and that such a precedent may encourage even the Civil Judges to requisition the record of the High Court, which would be highly detrimental to the prestige and dignity of the Institution, namely the High Court.
9. His second grievance was that he was not given sufficient opportunity to argue this question and make his submissions on the matter, by the learned Single Judge hearing the case.
10. We have no doubt that the High Court itself would be more conscious, than anyone else, of its obligation to protect and maintain the prestige, honour and dignity of the Institution. Knowing the administrative structure of the High Court and its practice in dealing with such matters, we are sure that the learned Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court can, in their wisdom and sagacity, themselves resolve the question in issue, best.
11. It is quite possible that, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the learned Judge hearing the matter may himself have had the same purpose in mind when he required the letter in question to be produced. He probably did so in order to ascertain the correct position and thus put an end to the controversy, because the production of the recommendations may be more conducive to the maintenance of the prestige and dignity of the Institution than withholding it.
12. All that the Advocate-General seeks is further opportunity to canvass his point of view.
13. Mr. Raza Kazim, Advocate appearing for the caveators respondents has fully agreed with this plea of the learned Advocate General.
14. The petition is therefore, disposed of with the observation that the learned Advocate-General Punjab, may move the learned High Court for further opportunity to canvass his point of view, before he is required to comply with the Court's order dated 29th November, 1987.
15. S.Q./G-59/S Order accordingly.