The Supreme Court expressed displeasure after the Allahabad High Court adjourned a bail plea 21 times, stressing that matters of personal liberty must be decided quickly. CJI B R Gavai asked the High Court Chief Justice to ensure the bail hearing is not delayed further.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure after learning that the Allahabad High Court had adjourned a bail plea as many as 21 times. The top court reminded that cases involving personal liberty must be decided without unnecessary delay and directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.
A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, along with Justices N V Anjaria and Alok Aradhe, said:
“Time and again, we have been saying matters regarding personal liberty of citizens must be heard and decided expeditiously. Thus, we request the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to handle the case expeditiously.”
The matter came up before the Supreme Court in the case of one Kuldeep, whose lawyer informed the bench that his bail application had been adjourned 21 times in the Allahabad High Court and was now listed for hearing only after two months.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Gautam Gambhir Foundation’s COVID-19 Drug Case
Referring to a similar case recently decided by the Supreme Court, the lawyer reminded the bench that an accused was granted bail after his plea had been adjourned 43 times.
In response, the Chief Justice noted that he had already asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to personally review that case.
In Kuldeep’s matter, while the Supreme Court refused to grant bail directly, the bench made its expectation clear.
It said:
“Needless to say that at least on the next date of hearing, the high court will take the matter and decide the bail application.”
The CJI further added that if the accused remained dissatisfied after the decision of the High Court, he could approach the top court again.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has shown concern about frequent adjournments in bail matters. The Chief Justice recently criticised the
“tendency of the high court to adjourn matters of personal liberty.”
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused, Ramnath Mishra alias Ramanath Mishra, who had been in custody for more than three-and-a-half years in multiple CBI cases.
The court noted that his bail plea had been adjourned 43 times by the Allahabad High Court. On August 25, the bench ordered his release if he was not wanted in any other case.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Moves to Include Women Lawyers Under PoSH Act, Seeks BCI Response
In that order, the bench had remarked:
“In the present case the matter has been adjourned on 43 occasions. We do not appreciate the tendency of the High Court to adjourn the matters pertaining to personal liberty of a citizen on such a large number of occasions. Time and again we have observed that the matters relating to personal liberty should be entertained by the Courts with utmost speed.”
With these repeated directions, the Supreme Court has once again underlined that delay in bail hearings amounts to injustice, as it directly impacts the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Supreme Court vs. Allahabad High Court: A Timeline of Recent Interventions
- Lakshya Tawar – 27 Adjournments (May 22, 2025)
The Supreme Court granted bail after the Allahabad HC adjourned a personal liberty matter 27 times. The bench remarked: “In matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time.” - Ramnath Mishra – 43 Adjournments (August 25, 2025)
Bail was granted after 43 adjournments, with the Court noting: “In the present case the matter has been adjourned on 43 occasions. We do not appreciate the tendency of the High Court to adjourn the matters about personal liberty of a citizen on such a large number of occasions. Time and again we have observed that the Courts should entertain the matters relating to personal liberty with utmost speed.” the Courts should entertain the matters relating to personal liberty - Kuldeep’s Bail Plea – 21 Adjournments (August 29, 2025)
The Supreme Court intervened again, noting 21 adjournments by the High Court and directed its Chief Justice to ensure that the matter is heard and decided expeditiously.
These three landmark cases alone establish a pattern of repeated SC interventions. Additional instances include:
- Co-accused in Mishra’s Case – 27 Adjournments (Referenced in August case)
During the Ramnath Mishra order, SC recalled that a co-accused had also been granted bail in May 2025 after 27 adjournments, affirming the earlier Tawar precedent. - Pattern of ‘Tendency’ to Delay – Repeated Reprimands
Beyond specific bail pleas, the Supreme Court has continually censured the High Court’s “tendency” to adjourn personal liberty cases, suggesting systemic concerns—not isolated incidents. - Judicial Accountability – Non-Bail Related (August 2025)
While not a bail case, in a separate matter, the Supreme Court barred an Allahabad HC judge from hearing criminal cases, citing “one of the worst and most erroneous orders we have come across.” This signals broader judicial quality concerns within the HC.
Summary Table
| Case / Accused | Adjournments | Key SC Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Lakshya Tawar (May 2025) | 27 | Bail granted; SC noted liberty matters shouldn’t be endlessly adjourned. |
| Co-accused in Mishra’s case | 27 | Referenced during Mishra case as similar precedent. |
| Ramnath Mishra (Aug 25) | 43 | Bail granted; strong SC rebuke of repeated delays. |
| Kuldeep (Aug 29) | 21 | SC directed expeditious hearing; asked HC CJ to personally intervene. |
Case Title:
Repeated Adjournments in Bail Matters (Kuldeep Bail Plea & Ramnath Mishra Case)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court vs Allahabad High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
