Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
Curtailing a person's liberty on the grounds of lack of human resources and order passed by the
executive declaring Lockdown, which holds no direct bearing on the case, is not justified and is
nothing more than misusing the power of the court to do injustice. The article highlights a similar
situation in which two high courts denied hearing bail applications on the pretext of following
lockdown guidelines and allowing only those bail applications which passed as an “extremely
urgent matter” and placing the lockdown regulation above individual liberty and freedom, thus
violating A. 21 of our constitution. In this article, the author deplores the reasoning given by both
judges of the high court in rejecting bail application, and how this instance showcases the failure
of our Judiciary to uphold the paramount right of liberty and freedom of individuals, in this time
of the pandemic.
Keywords: Liberty, Freedom, Article 21, Bail, Judicial Suspension, E- Judiciary, Pandemic.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have
been eroded.
-Friedrich August von Hayek
Amidst the national lockdown imposed due to covid 19, on the 3rd of April, a Supreme Court
bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta JJ, passed an order, granting an interim stay on
order passed by the single judge bench of Rajasthan High Court arising (out of S.B.Criminal
Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.17767 of 2019). The case was an appeal against an
order passed by a single judge of Rajasthan high court which dismissed the bail application of
the undertrial prisoner citing, non-availability of administrative staff and hearing of only those
cases which pass the test of 'extremely urgent matter', during lockdown period, as grounds for
dismissal. The irony was that the high court appealed against the order through its registry to the
Supreme Court, which later gave a stay on order.
Another case arose on the very same day, in the Bombay High Court, where another single judge
passed an order dismissing the bail application citing the same reasons and holding, the order
passed by Rajasthan high court as an authority for its actions. The reasons laid down by the judge
in succinct was-
The reasoning given by both judges of High Courts in the order can be termed absurd, and in
violation of constitutional as well as humanitarian principle. Unless an “extremely urgent
situation” for entertaining regular bail application is pointed out, the mere fact that the accused is
undergoing either pretrial or post-trial detention does not make a difference in deciding whether
to hear the bail plea. Denial of bail without any just cause amounts to a Judicial suspension of
Article 21 of the constitution. The same is being done for the class of undertrial prisoners citing
the order of lockdown passed by the executive, making the decision of the two high courts
unreasonable and arbitrary.
This situation reminds of episodes that happened during the emergency period, which was later
approved by the utterly disgraceful judgment of ADM Jabalpur delivered by the Apex court in
the year 1976. After what was done by the 44th amendment to the constitution, taking away a
person's liberty by the colorable order of the executive even in a state of emergency is discarded
as it makes a mockery of the constitution and is unconstitutional. The current situation is not the
one where an emergency has been declared, so, paying adherence to guidelines of the executive
cannot be a ground for not hearing bail applications and restricting one's liberty.
Further, Supreme Court in its judgement concerning Section 167(2), Cr.P.C (read this) said that
the right of default bail must be granted providing no extension for the period required to have
default bail, and declared that right to bail is indefeasible right, held by this court in the case of S.
Kasi v. State (2020), which in turn supports the individual liberty and freedom. The orders of
both, the Rajasthan and Bombay High Court, and the judgement of SC, regarding right of default
bail, stands in contrast with each other.
Conclusion
In this pandemic, many challenges have been put forth in front of our Judiciary, whether it be
dealing with the issue of migrant laborers, judicial review of varied state government guidelines,
or issue of under-trial prisoners. So far, the Judiciary lacks its competency to answer the same.
The issue of granting bail application is of prime importance. Judiciary cannot phrase restricting
one's liberty and freedom as non-important and cannot curb the fundamental rights on the pretext
of executive order or lack of resources.
In author's point of view, the need for E-Judiciary is the first significant change to be done so
that in the future no one's liberty is curbed for the mere reason of non-availability of human
resources, furthermore, it is the duty of the SC to pass an order for establishing the rule of law
regarding bail and to remove ambiguity erupted over the time, as many High courts have
imposed unconstitutional condition, such as donating money to PM cares fund, installing
Aarogya Setu app and many more, which inadvertently lead to ambiguity in the law of bail, and
should be cured by the Apex Court. The true justice was later rendered by the Supreme court
when they put a stay on order passed by the Rajasthan High court, but this particular instance
again reminds us of the ADM Jabalpur judgment, the darkest hour for Indian Judiciary.