The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of a trial judge’s letter seeking more time to conclude a trial, the last two paragraphs of which offered advice on when the Supreme Court should and should not grant bail, and has directed its Registry to obtain an explanation from the judge.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has disapproved of a letter written to it by a trial judge in West Bengal that went beyond a request for time and conveyed views on when bail should be granted, observing that it is not for a Presiding Officer to advise the Court on the subject [Amit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal].
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on September 28, 2026 in SLP (Crl) No. 8043 of 2026.
The background
The Calcutta High Court had declined bail to the petitioner, Amit Ghosh, on March 5, 2026, while permitting him to renew his application after the examination of prosecution witnesses. The High Court had expected 12 more witnesses to be examined by May 1, 2026, but none had been examined by May 11, 2026. The Supreme Court then directed that the trial be completed within three months “without fail”.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, wrote to the Supreme Court on August 11, 2026 seeking additional time. The last two paragraphs of the letter contained remarks offering guidance on when bail should and should not be granted.
The Court’s disapproval
Taking note of the letter, the Bench observed:
“It is not for the Presiding Officer to convey words of advice as to when this Court should grant bail and should not grant bail. The last two paragraphs of the letter are something which we have not appreciated.”
The Court directed its Registry to obtain an explanation from the trial judge.
Why The Trial Judge’S Letter Order Matters
The order underlines the boundaries of correspondence between a trial court and the Supreme Court. When a trial judge seeks an extension of time in a court-monitored trial, the communication is expected to confine itself to the reasons for delay, and not to offer views on how the Supreme Court should exercise its bail jurisdiction. The direction to the Registry to seek an explanation signals that the Court treats such remarks as a matter of judicial propriety.
Case Title: Amit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [SLP (Crl) No. 8043 of 2026]
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 28, 2026