The Supreme Court of India highlighted the need for a mechanism to ensure that accused persons granted bail are not unjustly detained due to unmet conditions. Addressing the plight of the poor, Justice Oka proposed automatic relisting of such cases while advocating for a system to monitor these situations. The Court also discussed improving mental healthcare in prisons and ensuring prisoners are informed of their rights.
New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a mechanism to address cases where accused persons remain in jail despite being granted bail due to unmet bail conditions, such as the inability to furnish expensive sureties. The Court’s observation came in the suo motu case, In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted the plight of poor accused persons who are unable to meet bail conditions. Justice Oka proposed that such cases could be “automatically relisted before the Bench that granted bail” to address the issue and take corrective measures.
“Can there be a system where if the persons are not released (in a timely manner) after bail, the matter will be listed automatically after some time before the court which has initially granted bail?”
Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.
Senior Advocate Liz Mathew, acting as Amicus Curiae, suggested that the concerned court should take suo motu cognisance in such situations. Justice Oka further emphasized the need for a designated body to monitor and inform courts about such cases, ensuring justice is upheld.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) apprised the Bench of an existing Central government scheme that provides financial aid to undertrial prisoners and convicts—Rs 40,000 for undertrials and Rs 25,000 for convicts. The Court requested more details about the scheme, particularly the application process and the time required for relief to reach eligible prisoners.
“Please place the scheme before us. We need to look into the procedure of applying for this scheme and also how much time it takes for relief to reach the accused or convicted person,”
the Bench stated.
The Court also addressed the lack of adequate mental healthcare facilities in prisons. The State of Manipur was urged to consider establishing a mental care facility ward within its prison system. The suggestion stemmed from a medical report highlighting the mental instability of five prisoners who had requested a transfer to a mental health center.
“The State will consider a mental care facility ward in prison and provide these things to these prisoners. State would have to consider complete implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,”
the Court directed.
The hearing also touched on earlier orders ensuring that convicts are aware of their rights to apply for permanent remission or challenge rejected applications. Compliance reports from various States and Union Territories regarding their handling of remission requests were reviewed.
The Bench is set to revisit the matter on December 18, 2024, continuing its focus on ensuring justice for underprivileged prisoners and the humane treatment of incarcerated individuals.
This initiative by the Supreme Court underscores its commitment to upholding the principles of justice, inclusivity, and timely legal recourse, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable groups within the prison system.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE