NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said no constitutional court can direct the trial courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner as it can't interfere with the discretion of the sessions courts.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said so while expunging all adverse remarks and observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against appellant Ayub Khan, District and Sessions Judge.
SC Rules Against Interference in Bail Orders by Constitutional Courts
The judge faced the wrath of the High Court for his failure to comply with a 2020 HC's judgment to mention in tabular form antecedents of an accused while deciding the bail applications.
Dealing with the judge's plea, the bench set aside the High Court's findings that the appellant has indulged in disobedience of judicial instructions and indiscipline.
Rajasthan HC’s Adverse Remarks Against Judge Expunged by Supreme Court
In its judgment, the bench said, "The constitutional courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail. However, the 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".
In further relief to the appellant, the court also held the adverse remarks and observations made against the appellant in the orders cannot be the basis for taking any action against the appellant on the administrative order.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared before the court on behalf of aggrieved judge.
After going through the facts of the matter and the submissions, the bench said, "We fail to understand how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion incorporated in the (2020) judgment."
Secondly, even assuming that the appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, the bench was of the view, "The High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer. The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side."
Luthra submitted that the High Court cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of the Session Judges by instructing them to pass orders by incorporating information about the antecedents of the accused in a particular format.
Concurring with the contention, the bench also relied upon 'Sonu Agnihotri Vs Chandra Shekhar and Others' (2024), to observe, "The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side."
On the HC's order on mandatory mentioning of antecedents of the accused in tabular form, the bench pointed out, the principles to be followed while deciding on a bail application are well settled.
"If trial courts commit errors while deciding bail applications, the same can always be corrected on the judicial side by the courts, which are higher in the judicial hierarchy," the bench said.
The court also said the presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him.
The bench also said when the prosecution places on record material showing antecedents of the accused, and if the court concludes that looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents, it is not necessary for the court to incorporate all the details of the antecedents as required by the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan (2020).
"However, 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 the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts," the bench stressed.
At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case, the bench said.
"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," the bench said.
The appellant contended the High Court went to the extent of observing that the act of disregarding direction contained in the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore is not only indiscipline but is a serious matter which may amount to contempt and an explanation of the appellant was called for.
The bench found the appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply.
"With the utmost respect to the High Court, undertaking such an exercise was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court which has a huge pendency," the bench said.
