Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 648
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a High Court issue blanket orders restricting the listing of bail applications and directing police not to make arrests in certain cases? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of a High Court’s administrative and judicial powers. This judgment arose from two orders passed by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, which placed restrictions on bail and arrests. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the legality of these orders, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and the established procedures for judicial and administrative functions.
Case Background
The case originated from two separate orders passed by a single judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first order, dated 31st March 2020, directed the High Court’s registry not to list bail applications, appeals, and applications for suspension of sentences as “extreme urgent matters” until the withdrawal of the complete lockdown. The second order, dated 17th May 2021, directed the police not to arrest individuals accused of offenses carrying a maximum sentence of three years and triable by a First Class Magistrate, also restricting the listing of anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in such cases.
The first order was passed in a bail application of one Shahrukh, while the second was in the anticipatory bail application of Than Singh, who was accused of offences under Sections 457 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The High Court ultimately rejected both bail applications. However, the Supreme Court decided to examine the legality of the orders that contained the general directions.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24 March 2020 | Rajasthan High Court issued a notification regarding urgent matters during COVID-19. |
| 31 March 2020 | Rajasthan High Court passed an order directing the registry not to list certain matters as “extreme urgent.” |
| 3 April 2020 | Supreme Court stayed the directions in the order dated 31st March 2020. |
| 20 May 2020 | High Court rejected the first bail application. |
| 17 May 2021 | Rajasthan High Court passed an order directing police not to arrest individuals in certain cases and restricting the listing of anticipatory bail applications. |
| 25 May 2021 | Supreme Court stayed the directions in the order dated 17th May 2021. |
| 17 July 2021 | The order passed on 17th May 2021 was to remain in operation till this date. |
| 2 August 2021 | High Court rejected the second bail application. |
| 29 September 2021 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, appealed to the Supreme Court against the orders passed by the single judge. The Supreme Court initially stayed the directions issued in the orders. Despite the fact that the specific bail applications were ultimately rejected by the High Court, the Supreme Court chose to examine the legality of the general directions issued by the single judge, as they impacted the administration of the High Court and the rights of individuals seeking bail.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the powers of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail.
- Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal.
- Section 6(2)(i) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005: This section empowers authorities to issue guidelines for disaster management.
- Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee fundamental rights, including equality before the law, protection of certain freedoms, and protection of life and personal liberty.
The court emphasized that the right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The provisions of the CrPC recognize the right of an accused to seek bail.
Arguments
The High Court of Rajasthan, represented by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, argued that the orders passed by the single judge encroached upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court. They contended that the Chief Justice has the authority to allocate business to individual judges and that this power cannot be appropriated by any single bench. The High Court also argued that the orders were passed without giving the High Court administration an opportunity to be heard.
The State, represented by Dr. Manish Singhvi, submitted that the issue of congestion in correctional homes had been addressed by the Supreme Court in a separate case. They also highlighted the directions for strict implementation of guidelines relating to arrests as contained in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| High Court’s Argument |
|
| State’s Argument |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the issues can be inferred from the judgment:
- Whether a single judge of the High Court can issue general directions that encroach upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice regarding the allocation of cases?
- Whether a High Court can issue a blanket order prohibiting the listing of bail applications, appeals, and applications for suspension of sentence, thereby impacting the right of personal liberty of incarcerated persons?
- Whether a High Court can direct the police not to arrest individuals in certain categories of cases, thereby interfering with the power of the investigating agencies?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a single judge can encroach upon the Chief Justice’s administrative powers? | The Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the single judge did encroach upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The allocation of cases is the prerogative of the Chief Justice, and a single judge cannot assume this power. |
| Whether a blanket order prohibiting the listing of bail applications is valid? | The Supreme Court held that such a blanket order infringes upon the right to personal liberty of incarcerated persons, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It also has the effect of temporarily eclipsing statutory provisions. |
| Whether a High Court can direct the police not to arrest individuals in certain cases? | The Supreme Court held that the power to make arrests lies with the investigating agencies, and the High Court cannot issue general directives that interfere with this power. The court also noted that comprehensive guidelines for arrests have already been laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and there was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to issue general directives. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Highlighted the pre-eminent position of the Chief Justice of a High Court in fixing the roster and allocating cases. |
| High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Another [(1998) 3 SCC 72] | Supreme Court of India | Underscored the administrative power of the Chief Justice of a High Court in dealing with the subordinate staff. |
| Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Anr. [(2018) 1 SCC 196] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the administrative power of the Chief Justice in allocating cases. |
| Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 5 SCC 341] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the administrative power of the Chief Justice in allocating cases. |
| Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India & Anr. [(2018) 8 SCC 396] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the administrative power of the Chief Justice in allocating cases. |
| Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the methodology to be followed by law enforcing agencies while making arrests. |
| Nikesh Tara Chand Shah v. Union of India & Anr. [(2018) 11 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Traced the history and importance of bail provisions in criminal jurisprudence. |
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the purpose of granting bail. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| High Court’s argument that the single judge encroached upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice. | The Court agreed with this submission, holding that the single judge’s orders did encroach upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice. |
| High Court’s argument that the orders were passed without giving the High Court administration an opportunity to be heard. | The Court agreed that the orders were passed without giving the High Court administration an opportunity to be heard. |
| State’s submission regarding congestion in correctional homes. | The Court acknowledged that this issue had been addressed by the Supreme Court in a separate case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 1]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the Chief Justice of the High Court has the pre-eminent position in fixing the roster.
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Another [(1998) 3 SCC 72]: This case was used to underscore the administrative power of the Chief Justice of a High Court.
- Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Anr. [(2018) 1 SCC 196], Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 5 SCC 341], and Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India & Anr. [(2018) 8 SCC 396]: These cases were used to reiterate the administrative power of the Chief Justice.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273]: This case was used to emphasize the methodology to be followed by law enforcing agencies while making arrests. The Court held that there was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to issue general directives in this regard.
- Nikesh Tara Chand Shah v. Union of India & Anr. [(2018) 11 SCC 1]: The Court relied on this case to trace the history and importance of bail provisions in criminal jurisprudence.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]: This case was used to explain the purpose of granting bail and the principles governing it.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of the High Court and to protect the fundamental rights of individuals seeking bail. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty is paramount and cannot be curtailed by blanket orders. The Court also noted that the orders passed by the single judge had the effect of temporarily eclipsing statutory provisions, which was not permissible.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding the administrative powers of the Chief Justice | 30% |
| Protecting the fundamental rights of individuals seeking bail | 40% |
| Ensuring adherence to established legal procedures | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based more on the legal principles and less on the facts of the case.
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered the alternative interpretations of the powers of the High Court but rejected them because they were in violation of the established legal principles and the constitutional rights of individuals. The court emphasized that while the pandemic situation was a concern, it could not be a ground to suspend the fundamental rights of individuals.
The Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the single judge of the High Court were beyond his jurisdiction and infringed upon the right to personal liberty.
The reasons for the decision were:
- The single judge encroached upon the administrative powers of the Chief Justice.
- The blanket order prohibiting the listing of bail applications infringed upon the right to personal liberty.
- The direction to the police not to arrest individuals in certain cases was an interference with the power of the investigating agencies.
“It was also improper for the learned Single Judge to come to a general finding that when there is complete lockdown the bail applications, appeal under SC/ST Act and applications for suspension of sentence in appeals and revisions could not be considered to be matters of extreme urgency.”
“Such sweeping orders in our adversarial adjudicatory system would be contrary to law as many persons would be impacted by such orders without having any knowledge of the proceeding.”
“Right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The right of an accused, an undertrial prisoner or a convicted person awaiting appeal court’s verdict to seek bail on suspension of sentence is recognized in Sections 439, 438 and 389 of the 1973 Code.”
There were no minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, and both judges agreed on the decision.
The court’s reasoning was based on established legal principles, constitutional rights, and the need to maintain the separation of powers within the judiciary. The court emphasized that individual liberty cannot be compromised even during a pandemic. The Supreme Court also clarified that the High Court cannot interfere in the power of the investigating agencies.
The implications of this judgment are that High Courts cannot issue blanket orders that restrict the fundamental rights of individuals seeking bail or that interfere with the administrative powers of the Chief Justice. This judgment ensures that the right to personal liberty is protected and that established legal procedures are followed.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The court reiterated existing principles of law and constitutional rights. The court emphasized that the right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts cannot issue blanket orders restricting the listing of bail applications.
- High Courts cannot direct police not to arrest individuals in certain categories of cases.
- The administrative powers of the Chief Justice of a High Court are paramount in allocating cases to individual judges.
- The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed by judicial orders without due process.
This judgment will likely impact future cases by preventing High Courts from issuing similar blanket orders that restrict the fundamental rights of individuals. It reinforces the importance of following established legal procedures and respecting the separation of powers within the judiciary.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, as the orders under appeal had already expired. The Court allowed the appeals and observed that there was no necessity to formally set aside the orders.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot issue blanket orders restricting the listing of bail applications or directing the police not to arrest individuals in certain cases. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the importance of individual liberty and the administrative powers of the Chief Justice. There was no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the limits of the High Court’s powers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies that High Courts cannot issue blanket orders that restrict the listing of bail applications or that interfere with the administrative powers of the Chief Justice. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty is a fundamental right and that established legal procedures must be followed. This judgment reinforces the importance of individual liberty and the separation of powers within the judiciary.