CJI DY Chandrachud Calls for Evaluation of Why District Judges are Deviating from ‘Bail is the Rule’ Principle. “All district judges must provide an explanation for this emerging trend,” stated the CJI, expressing concerns about district courts exhibiting increased restraint in matters pertaining to personal liberty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Gujarat: CJI (Chief Justice of India) DY Chandrachud expressed concern Today (2 March) that the principle of “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” is waning in district courts across India.
ALSO READ: PIL filed Against CJI Chandrachud before National Human Rights Commission
The CJI called for an examination of why district courts seemed hesitant to uphold the personal liberty of citizens. Addressing the reluctance of district judges to grant bail, the CJI remarked:
“There is a rising apprehension that there is restraint in district courts in matters concerning personal liberty. Bail is the rule is losing ground in district courts and this trend needs thorough evaluation, and all district judges must tell me why this trend is emerging.”
Speaking at the Judicial Officers Conclave in Kachchh, Gujarat, the CJI emphasized the need for the district judiciary in India to continuously evolve to maintain citizens’ faith. He highlighted the infrastructure challenges faced by district courts, including overcrowded courtrooms and delays in case filings.
Regarding adjournments and case pendency, he noted that such practices contribute to the perception that delays are inherent in the judicial process:
“My experience is that it is easy to decide a complex case with a judgment than to persuade a lawyer to argue a case. Adjournments have become normalized now. Imagine anyone of us going to a doctor and the doctor saying he is not going to treat today. Often legal decisions do not emerge during the lifetime of farmers. We should not wait for our citizens to die waiting for a judicial result. The concept of access to justice has to go beyond access to courts and has to translate into decisions of the court.”
The CJI also expressed dismay about the lack of facilities for women in the legal profession:
“Only 6 percent of district courts have women-friendly sanitary vending machines. I have been told women civil judges often use the washroom at 9 AM and next at 6 PM. They cannot use the washrooms since they have to pass by undertrials. The same issue arises with childcare centers. We are putting a separate burden on women. Childbearing and child-rearing are significant life decisions, and this creates an inclusive workplace. Gender is not only a woman’s concern; it is also a man’s concern.”
Additionally, the CJI reiterated concerns over references to outdated gender stereotypes in court judgments.
“Judgments from district courts often employ gender stereotypes, and it’s imperative for our district courts to exercise caution in this regard. Such judgments perpetuate biases and marginalize women within the legal system. Outdated designations like ‘jamadars,’ etc., reflect the antiquated colonial structure,”
–he emphasized.
He also advocated for a cultural shift in the interaction between the higher judiciary and the district judiciary:
“Let’s refrain from labeling the district judiciary as subordinate and instead infuse dignity into their work. Justice Bela Trivedi serves as a prime example, having risen from the district judiciary to guide us all. While the Supreme Court formulates policies, it’s the district judiciary that implements them,”
-he concluded.
Meanwhile, Justice Khanna reflected on the role of judges in society:
“Are judges special? No, we are not. It’s the nature of our work and the societal right conferred upon us to rectify wrongs, punish the guilty, and address injustices faced by commoners and the poor. We mustn’t forget that the power we wield is entrusted by the people, and therefore, we must strive to meet their expectations and work with integrity,”
–he stressed.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
