New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that while constitutional courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail, they cannot lay down the form in which a bail order should be passed by trial courts.
“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,” a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka ruled, as it heard the plea of a District and Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) to quash the adverse observations issued against him.
After the appellant-judicial offer rejected a bail application, the accused petitioned the Rajasthan High Court. While granting bail, adverse observations were made against the appellant for not complying with directions issued by the Rajasthan HC in the Jugal Kishore vs State of Rajasthan case.
The appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of the accused in the prescribed tabular form in terms of the directions in paragraph 9 of the Jugal Kishore case.
Since the directions issued in the Jugal Kishore case were not complied with, the single-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that the appellant’s action did not only amount to indiscipline but may also amount to contempt.
At this, the Supreme Court said: “We fail to understand how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion incorporated in paragraph 9 (of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore).”
It said that the direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was “inappropriate” and an explanation from a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side.
Further, the apex court said that it was a “waste of precious judicial time” of the Rajasthan High Court by directing the judicial officer to send a list of the total number of bail applications he disposed of, along with a report on whether directions contained in Jugal Kishore case were followed by him.
“What the High Court has done while deciding a bail petition in a case where bail was denied by the appellant as a Session Judge was completely uncalled for. The entire exercises done by the High Court right from issuing directions in the case of Jugal Kishore and passing orders dated 4th April 2023, 25th April 2023 and the impugned order by which the High Court found fault with the appellant was not only unwarranted but illegal,” the Supreme Court ruled.
It added that similar directions which were issued in the case of Jugal Kishore have been set aside by the Supreme Court in the past.
Further, it held that the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court cannot be said to be binding directions and at the highest, the same could be treated as suggestions.
Non-compliance with those directions by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt, ruled the apex court.
In conclusion, the apex court directed expunging “all adverse remarks/observations” against the appellant and clarified that those adverse remarks and observations cannot be the basis for taking any action against the appellant on the administrative side.
“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,” it said.
(IANS)
