The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure over the prolonged pendency of bail and anticipatory bail applications in several High Courts, calling it a serious threat to personal liberty. The Court warned that it may issue mandatory guidelines if High Court Chief Justices fail to ensure timely hearings in bail matters.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday raised serious concern over the huge delay in hearing bail and anticipatory bail applications in many High Courts across the country. The issue came up during the hearing of a case from Haryana, where the Court examined the growing pendency of bail matters, especially before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, observed that the condition of bail hearings in several High Courts was extremely worrying.
ALSO READ: From High Courts to Apex Court: Supreme Court Judges’ Parent High Courts Explained
The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the way matters related to personal liberty were being handled, saying that such cases should always be treated as a priority.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice made strong oral remarks highlighting the seriousness of the issue. He said,
“We are extremely disappointed to see how the prayers pertaining to liberty of individuals are not being entertained. Dockets may be heavy and there may be matters requiring consideration, but among miscellaneous matters there can be nothing more important than the prayer of grant or refuse bail,”
clearly underlining that bail matters directly affect the freedom of individuals and cannot be ignored.
The concern deepened when the counsel for the petitioner submitted detailed charts before the Court. These charts showed that many bail and anticipatory bail applications filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pending since May 2025.
Despite repeated listings, the matters were adjourned again and again without any final hearing, leaving accused persons uncertain about their liberty for months.
Taking note of this disturbing trend, the Supreme Court said that Chief Justices of High Courts should actively intervene and take corrective steps to ensure that bail matters are heard within a reasonable time. The Bench pointed out that similar problems were being faced in other High Courts as well.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Orders Major Reshuffle, Transfers 21 High Court Judges
The Court also referred to the situation in the Patna High Court, where petitions have already been filed complaining that bail applications are not even being listed for hearing. This, the Bench noted, reflects a larger systemic problem across the judiciary.
Expressing expectations from the High Courts, the Chief Justice stated,
“We expect High Court Chief Justices to take remedial action so that High Courts can decide pleas in a reasonable time,”
emphasising the responsibility of High Court leadership to protect individual liberty.
The Bench further observed that despite repeated directions issued earlier by the Supreme Court for the speedy disposal of bail applications, there appears to be no real improvement on the ground. According to the Court, many High Courts have failed to develop any effective internal mechanism to ensure time-bound hearings in bail cases.
While acknowledging the constitutional position that the Chief Justice of each High Court controls the listing of cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that prolonged delays affecting personal liberty cannot be tolerated.
The Court remarked,
“We are conscious of the fact that listing is the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justices since they are the masters of the roster. The people are languishing in jail, and bail pleas are not heard and there is complete uncertainty as to when they will know the fate of their application. This court is under the bounden duty to issue certain mandatory guidelines,”
signalling that the apex court may step in if the situation does not improve.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Four High Court Chief Justices
However, before framing any binding guidelines, the Supreme Court decided to first collect complete data from across the country. The Bench directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit detailed information regarding the number of pending regular bail and anticipatory bail applications before their respective courts.
The Court indicated that after examining this data, it would consider issuing mandatory directions to ensure that bail matters, which directly impact personal liberty under the Constitution, are heard and decided without unnecessary delay.
Case Title:
Sunny Chauhan vs State of Haryana
Click Here to Read More Reports On High Courts
