Supreme Court quashes High Court’s directions on bail order format: Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) INSC 994 (17 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 994

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a High Court direct Trial Courts to follow a specific format while passing orders on bail applications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing that while High Courts can guide on principles for granting bail, they cannot dictate the format of orders issued by Trial Courts. This case arose from a Rajasthan High Court directive requiring Trial Courts to include a detailed chart of an accused’s criminal antecedents in every bail order. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the boundaries of judicial oversight, protecting the discretion of Trial Courts.

The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service, faced scrutiny after rejecting a bail application. The accused, charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, subsequently sought bail from the High Court. The High Court granted bail but also made adverse remarks against the appellant for not following a prescribed format for bail orders.

The issue began when the Rajasthan High Court, in *Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan*, issued directions that Trial Courts must include a detailed chart of an accused’s criminal history when deciding bail applications. This chart was to include FIR numbers, case numbers, sections, dates, status, and dates of arrest and release. The appellant, while rejecting the bail application, did mention that there were 10 criminal cases against the accused, but did not present the information in the mandated tabular format.

This led the High Court to issue a show-cause notice to the appellant, questioning his non-compliance and terming it as indiscipline and potential contempt. The appellant explained that the omission was due to work pressure and assured compliance in the future. However, the High Court further directed him to provide a list of all bail applications disposed of in February 2023 and whether the prescribed format was followed, leading to the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, rejected a bail application. The accused then approached the Rajasthan High Court for bail. The High Court granted bail but also took issue with the appellant’s non-compliance with its earlier directions in *Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan* regarding the format of bail orders. The High Court issued notices to the appellant, directed him to submit reports, and ultimately made adverse remarks against him, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The High Court’s actions included directing the appellant to explain his non-compliance, calling for a list of bail orders passed in February 2023, and finally, directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for necessary action. The Supreme Court noted that these actions were unwarranted and an inappropriate use of judicial time.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers of the High Court in directing subordinate courts and the discretion of Trial Courts in deciding bail applications. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. The accused in the initial bail application was charged under this section.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the concept of common intention in criminal acts. The accused was also charged under this section.
• Arms Act, 1959: The accused was also charged under Sections 3, 3/25, and 5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court can lay down principles for granting bail, it cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of Trial Courts by mandating a specific format for orders. The court also referred to Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which invest the High Court with supervisory powers over subordinate courts. However, these powers do not extend to dictating the manner in which orders are written.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s directions in *Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan*, mandating a specific tabular format for bail orders, were an overreach of its powers and interfered with the judicial discretion of Trial Courts.
• The appellant contended that the High Court’s insistence on compliance with these directions, even after the Supreme Court had set aside similar directions in a previous case (*Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.*), was illegal.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in *Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others* to argue that the unwarranted strictures passed by the High Court could adversely affect his judicial career.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court should not have called for an explanation from a judicial officer on the judicial side and that such actions should only be taken on the administrative side.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State assisted the Court but did not make any specific submissions against the appellant.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative because it highlighted the overreach of the High Court’s directions and emphasized the importance of judicial discretion for Trial Courts. The appellant also correctly pointed out that the High Court’s actions were not in line with the principle of judicial restraint as laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the High Court can mandate a specific format for Trial Courts while deciding bail applications.
2. Whether the High Court’s directions in *Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan* were binding on Trial Courts.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing notices and adverse remarks against the appellant for non-compliance with its directions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The directions in *Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan* were held to be non-binding suggestions, not mandatory directions.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that it had already set aside similar directions in *Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.*
• The Supreme Court relied on *Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others* to highlight the potential harm caused by unwarranted strictures against judicial officers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the judicial discretion of Trial Courts and ensure that High Courts do not overstep their supervisory role. The Court emphasized that while High Courts can provide guidance, they cannot dictate the manner in which Trial Courts write their orders. The Court also considered the potential harm that adverse remarks can cause to a judicial officer’s career.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the High Court’s directions and the appellant’s actions, were considered, the Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations, such as the scope of judicial review and the importance of judicial discretion.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s argument that the directions were necessary for ensuring proper consideration of antecedents. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the presence of antecedents is only one factor among many and that mandating a specific format was an overreach. The Court emphasized that it is the substance of the order, not the format, that matters.

The Supreme Court decided that the High Court’s directions were not binding and that the adverse remarks against the appellant should be expunged. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that while High Courts have supervisory powers, they cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of Trial Courts by mandating a specific format for orders.

The Supreme Court held that the directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of *Jugal Kishore* cannot be said to be binding directions. The Court also held that non-compliance with what is observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt.

“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.”

“What the High Court has done in paragraph 9 in the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore is that it has made it mandatory for the Trial Courts to incorporate a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who applies for bail.”

“Injustice has been done to the appellant by passing the orders which we have referred to above.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot mandate a specific format for Trial Courts when deciding bail applications.
• Directions issued by High Courts regarding the format of orders are considered suggestions, not binding instructions.
• Non-compliance with such suggestions cannot be treated as indiscipline or contempt.
• Adverse remarks against judicial officers should be avoided, especially on the judicial side.
• The judicial discretion of Trial Courts must be respected.

The judgment clarifies the boundaries of judicial oversight and reinforces the importance of judicial discretion at the Trial Court level. It emphasizes that while High Courts have a supervisory role, they cannot dictate the manner in which Trial Courts write their orders. This decision is likely to have a significant impact on the relationship between High Courts and Trial Courts, promoting a more respectful and balanced approach.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• All adverse remarks and observations in the impugned order dated 5th May 2023 against the appellant were expunged.
• The findings in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, holding the appellant guilty of disobedience and indiscipline, were set aside.
• The direction to place the case before the Chief Justice was also set aside.
• Observations made against the appellant in orders dated 4th April 2023 and 25th April 2023, and directions issued thereunder, were set aside.
• The Court clarified that adverse remarks and observations made against the appellant could not be the basis for any administrative action.
• A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan to be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot mandate a specific format for Trial Courts while deciding bail applications. The Supreme Court clarified that such directions are merely suggestions and that non-compliance cannot be treated as indiscipline or contempt. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial discretion for Trial Courts and sets a precedent against High Courts interfering with the form of orders passed by subordinate courts. The Supreme Court also reiterated the importance of judicial restraint and the need to avoid adverse remarks against judicial officers on the judicial side.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court in *Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan* ruled that High Courts cannot mandate a specific format for bail orders issued by Trial Courts. The Court emphasized that such directions are merely suggestions and that non-compliance cannot be treated as indiscipline or contempt. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial discretion at the Trial Court level and the need for High Courts to exercise restraint in their supervisory role. The Supreme Court expunged all adverse remarks against the appellant, providing relief and setting a clear precedent for future cases.