The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec 17) held that Constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) do not have the authority to direct trial courts to adopt a specific format or manner for writing orders in bail cases. A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih reaffirmed that Constitutional courts cannot encroach upon the discretionary powers of trial courts by prescribing a specific format for writing orders in bail cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed that Constitutional courts, including High Courts and the Supreme Court, do not hold the authority to direct trial courts on the format or structure for writing orders in bail cases.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih underscored that such directives would infringe upon the discretionary powers of trial courts.
Observations from the Supreme Court
The Bench made it clear that trial courts must retain their autonomy when deciding on bail applications and that imposing specific formats would be an overreach of authority by higher courts.
The Court said:
“Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. One Judge of a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial courts should use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that another format is better.”
This landmark decision came while hearing an appeal filed by a District and Sessions Judge from Rajasthan, who sought relief against adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court regarding his handling of a bail application.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a bail application submitted in an attempt to murder case. The District and Sessions Judge had rejected the bail plea, which was subsequently challenged in the Rajasthan High Court.
While granting bail to the accused, the High Court criticized the Sessions Judge for failing to comply with its earlier directives in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan.
In Jugal Kishore, the High Court had prescribed a tabular format for documenting the criminal antecedents of the accused in bail orders.
The Sessions Judge’s failure to follow this directive led to scrutiny and adverse observations by the High Court.
High Court’s Remarks and Consequences
The High Court went beyond criticism, describing the actions of the Sessions Judge as bordering on indiscipline or contempt of court.
The judge was required to explain his actions and submit compliance reports. Furthermore, the High Court ordered the Sessions Judge to furnish a list of bail applications he had disposed of, verifying whether he adhered to the prescribed tabular documentation format.
Despite the Sessions Judge citing excessive work pressure as the reason for the oversight, the High Court continued to question his compliance with its directions. The escalating scrutiny led the aggrieved judge to move the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court in Jugal Kishore were not mandatory but suggestive. The Bench observed:
“If a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts. Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case.”
The Court expressed concern over the potential damage such adverse remarks could inflict on the career of a judicial officer. It stated:
“The adverse remarks and observations made against the appellant in the aforesaid orders cannot be the basis for taking any action against the appellant on the administrative side.”
By setting aside the High Court’s remarks, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial independence and the need to protect trial court judges from undue administrative scrutiny.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, along with advocates Javed Khan, Vanya Gupta, and Sandeep Mishra, represented the appellant District and Sessions Judge.
On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak, along with advocates Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, and Yashika Bum, appeared in court.
CASE TITLE:
Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Constitutional Courts
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
