Ram Chandra v State of Uttar Pradesh

• A witness had been the subject of repeated summons in connection with judicial proceedings, raising a question as to whether the manner of exercising the summoning power had given due regard to the witness's circumstances and the necessity of each summons issued

1. What standard governs a court's exercise of the power to summon and compel the attendance of witnesses, and what considerations must be balanced in exercising this power.

• The Supreme Court held that while courts possess a wide power to summon and compel the attendance of witnesses necessary for the just adjudication of a case, this power must be exercised judiciously, not mechanically or repetitively without cause
• Courts must have due regard to the genuine difficulty or hardship that repeated or unnecessary summons may impose on a witness, balancing this against the genuine evidentiary need for the witness's testimony
• The power to summon is a means to secure justice, not an instrument that should be wielded so as to cause undue harassment to persons who are not themselves parties to the litigation

The power of a court to summon witnesses, while broad and necessary for securing evidence, must be exercised judiciously, with due regard to avoiding unnecessary hardship or repeated harassment of witnesses, balancing evidentiary need against the legitimate interests and convenience of the person summoned.