The Supreme Court of India is increasingly functioning as a “bail court,” a trend flagged by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who noted the apex court’s heavy docket of bail petitions that is diverting its attention from critical constitutional matters. Her observations highlight a systemic issue where the reluctance of lower courts to grant bail forces litigants to approach the highest judicial forum, contributing to judicial overload.
The Scale of the Bail Burden
Justice Nagarathna recently articulated her concern, stating that the Supreme Court has effectively become a “bail court.” She revealed that on a single Friday, a bench heard 25 bail matters, and on Saturday, 19 were considered. “One after the other, we are considering either granting or refusing bail,” she remarked, adding that the court was “exhausting itself only in hearing bail matters.” This influx of bail applications means that cases vitally needing the Supreme Court’s attention as a constitutional arbiter are not receiving adequate focus. This sentiment is echoed by other senior judges, including Justice B.R. Gavai, who noted in March 2024 that Supreme Court benches routinely hear 15 to 20 bail matters daily, and Justice S.K. Kaul, who observed in January 2023 that nearly a third of the court’s cases involved bail or remission.
Reluctance in Lower Courts Fuels SC Congestion
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that a primary reason for this trend is the pervasive reluctance among judges in High Courts and trial courts to grant bail. This hesitation stems from a deep-seated “fear among judges” of potential repercussions, such as departmental inquiries, adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), or career setbacks if their bail orders are overturned by higher courts. Judges may feel that their competence is judged by their inclination towards the prosecution, leading them to err on the side of caution, especially in heinous crimes. This cautious approach by lower judiciary contributes significantly to the high number of undertrial prisoners in India’s jails, with over 75% of the prison population comprising undertrials.
Diluting the Apex Court’s Mandate
Justice Nagarathna noted that while lower courts might have a clearer view of the factual nuances of offences, by the time a matter reaches the Supreme Court, significant time has often elapsed. Accused individuals may have already spent considerable periods in custody, with charges filed and investigations concluded. Senior advocates also highlighted that the Supreme Court often grants bail in cases where lower courts have denied it. This situation forces litigants to appeal for the “slightest of reasons,” leading the Supreme Court to adopt various “avatars” – from family court to bail court – thus diluting its constitutional jurisdiction.
The judicial system’s efficiency is further hampered by the sheer volume of pending bail applications, contributing to the overall case backlog. The Supreme Court has itself issued directives, mandating High Courts and district courts to decide bail applications within two months to uphold the fundamental right to personal liberty. However, the persistent reluctance at lower levels continues to push these matters up the judicial hierarchy.
A Glimpse into Current Hearings
These observations come at a time when the Supreme Court is actively hearing significant bail pleas. Notably, the court has issued notices on bail applications filed by activists like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others involved in the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case. These individuals have been incarcerated for over five years, and their appeals highlight the critical nature of bail matters that are consuming the court’s valuable time.
The Path Forward: Reinforcing Judicial Principles
The principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” has been a cornerstone of Indian bail jurisprudence, as reiterated in numerous Supreme Court pronouncements, including landmark judgments like Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. However, the current trend suggests a deviation from this principle at the lower judicial tiers. Addressing this issue requires a multi-pronged approach: empowering trial court judges to grant bail without fear of reprisal, ensuring consistent adherence to Supreme Court guidelines, and perhaps exploring legislative reforms to streamline the bail process. The legal framework, which aims to ensure justice and protect liberty, must be robust enough to prevent the Supreme Court from being predominantly a “bail court,” thereby allowing it to fulfill its primary mandate as the guardian of the Constitution and dispenser of substantive justice. The current news underscores a critical juncture for India’s criminal justice system, demanding urgent attention to ensure that liberty is protected and justice is delivered efficiently at all levels.
