Supreme Court urges all High Courts to frame rules mandating disclosure of prior criminal cases in bail applications. Also expunges harsh remarks against a judge, calling them “uncalled for” and passed without hearing him.
New Delhi: Today, on July 18, the Supreme Court of India has said that all High Courts in the country should think about changing their rules so that anyone applying for bail must tell the court about their past criminal record.
This suggestion came during a case where the top court cancelled some harsh remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a lower court judge.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Orders Major Reshuffle, Transfers 21 High Court Judges
A three-judge bench, including Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, said that it is important for all High Courts to consider putting in place a rule that makes it compulsory for an accused to inform the court if they have been involved in any other criminal cases in the past.
The bench observed,
“We feel that every high court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective high court rules and/or criminal side rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.”
This suggestion was made while the Supreme Court was hearing a matter related to an attempt-to-murder case. In that case, a trial court judge had granted bail to the accused. However, the complainant challenged this bail and succeeded in getting it cancelled.
After this, the accused once again approached the Rajasthan High Court, asking for bail. The High Court refused the bail and made strong remarks against the judicial officer who had granted it earlier.
The High Court said that the bail was given in a “grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner”, without properly checking the criminal history of the accused.
These strong remarks or “strictures” made by the High Court were challenged by the judicial officer before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the criminal record of an accused is indeed an important issue and courts all over India must consider this while hearing bail applications.
The apex court also took note of the rules followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. According to those rules, whenever a person applies for bail, they must clearly mention whether or not they have been involved in any other criminal cases.
The top court appreciated this practice and said it should be followed more widely.
The Supreme Court further directed that a copy of its order should be sent to the registrar generals of all High Courts so that they can include such a rule if it is not already part of their system.
The bench also discussed the matter of passing critical comments against judicial officers. It reminded that higher courts should usually avoid making such harsh remarks unless there is a very strong reason.
In this case, the top court noted that the High Court passed serious observations against the judge without giving him a chance to explain or defend himself.
The court said,
“In the present case, the fact remains that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the single judge of the high court to the detriment of the appellant-judicial officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause.”
Finally, the Supreme Court removed or “expunged” the harsh remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court, saying they were not necessary. The court stated that such comments were “uncalled for”.
CASE TITLE:
Kaushal Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on High Courts
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
