New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed strong displeasure at the judiciary in Odisha, invalidating bail conditions that required accused persons from Dalit and Adivasi communities to perform manual cleaning duties at police stations.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed profound disappointment and its strongest disapproval of these directives, characterising them as a reflection of a “regressive” and “colonial mindset” that violates fundamental human rights.
The Court’s intervention came through a suo motu case registered after various media reports highlighted the imposition of these “obnoxious” conditions on marginalised individuals involved in social protests.
The apex court observed that such conditions strike at the very heart of human dignity and proceed on an impermissible premise of guilt before trial. While considering the matter, the Bench noted that these directives were notably absent in cases involving accused persons from more privileged sections of society. This disparity led the Court to observe that the conditions were “caste-coloured” and indicative of an unarticulated bias within the State’s judicial framework. The nature of these requirements—compelling marginalised individuals to clean public premises as a price for their liberty—was described by the Bench as “cruel, abhorrent, and unknown to the law”.
It was found that a single judge of the Orissa High Court, Justice S.K. Panigrahi, had passed at least fifty such orders between April and September 2025. These orders directed accused persons in various cases, ranging from theft to murder, to clean not only police stations but also temples, hospitals, village roads, and even a bank. For instance, a person accused of stealing from a temple was ordered to clean that specific temple, while a woman accused of failing to repay loans was directed to clean the premises of an ICICI Bank branch.
The Supreme Court emphasised that there is no statutory provision under Indian law that permits the imposition of such “community service” as a condition for bail. While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does recognise community service as a distinct form of punishment, it is strictly intended as a penal provision to be imposed upon conviction, not as a requirement for pre-trial release. The Bench reiterated that the judiciary is entrusted with the duty to safeguard constitutional guarantees and must protect the most vulnerable citizens from the “might of the State”.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant addressed the Advocate General of Odisha, Pitambar Acharya, stating that such orders bring a “bad name” to the judiciary. He remarked that it was disheartening to see such practices persisting in the year 2026, especially after 75 years of India’s constitutional journey towards a casteless society. The Bench noted that the gift of “substantive equality” provided by the Constitution is undermined when judicial orders reflect and reinforce social hierarchies.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared all such bail conditions “null and void”. The Court issued an omnibus direction to all courts in Odisha to delete these “offending conditions” from their existing orders and to refrain from substituting them with any other onerous or analogous requirements. The Bench clarified that the accused persons shall remain on bail and be deemed relieved of these specific obligations.
To prevent the recurrence of such practices nationwide, the Supreme Court directed its Registry to circulate a copy of the order to all High Courts across India. Each High Court is required to ensure that the order is communicated to every judicial officer within its jurisdiction, along with a direction that such “caste-coloured” conditions must not be imposed. The Bench observed that such practices have the potential to generate serious “social friction” and must be eradicated to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the justice system.
The Court concluded by reminding the State judiciary that its primary role is to protect the rights and dignity of individuals, ensuring that the “premise of guilt” does not override the fundamental right to liberty. By invalidating these “abhorrent” conditions, the Supreme Court sought to realign the functioning of the lower courts with the constitutional vision of equality and human dignity.
Case Title: In Re: Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail By High Court Of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and ancillary issues | SMW (Crl) 2/2026
