"Contrary To Judicial Propriety & Discipline": SC Pulls Up Kerala HC for Modifying Bail Terms During Pending SLP

The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing an SLP filed on March 24, 2025, challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to one, Anitha R. Nair. Notice was issued in the matter on April 9, 2025, and Nair entered appearance on May 16, 2025.

However, during the pendency of the SLP, Nair approached the Kerala High Court on July 6, 2025, seeking modification of her bail conditions to permit foreign travel. The High Court entertained the plea, observing initially that separate court fees were required for each bail application. Eventually, by its order dated August 12, 2025, the High Court deleted Condition No. 4 of the anticipatory bail order that barred Nair from leaving India without permission of the jurisdictional court. She was granted liberty to travel abroad for two weeks, subject to filing an affidavit with details of her travel plans, contact information, and an undertaking to appear before the trial court when required.

Further, on August 23, 2025, the High Court clarified that since permission to travel was granted, Nair’s passport should also be released, noting that the issue had been inadvertently overlooked earlier.

The Supreme Court took exception to these orders, pointing out that the High Court had acted despite being informed in pleadings that the SLP was pending. Referring to its earlier ruling in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1, the Court stressed that while High Courts are courts of record and not “subordinate” to the Supreme Court, judicial propriety requires restraint once an order is under challenge before the apex court.

“In a unified hierarchical judicial system… the appellate jurisdiction inherently carries with it a power to issue corrective directions binding on the forum below,” the Court noted, observing that passing modification orders in such circumstances could prejudice or render infructuous proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Bench also cited Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services (1995 Supp (3) SCC 434), where it had deprecated parallel litigation before the High Court when the same matter was pending before the apex court.

Expressing its “grave displeasure,” the Court noted that Nair’s counter affidavit filed on July 14, 2025, made “not a whisper” about her modification application pending before the High Court. The concealment, according to the Court, raised serious concerns.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court’s orders in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 6178 of 2025 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 until further directions. It also issued notice to Nair to explain why her anticipatory bail should not be cancelled for suppression of material facts.

The Court directed that Nair immediately surrender her passport and restrained her from leaving India without its permission. Her response to the show-cause notice is to be filed within three weeks, along with all documents placed before the High Court or the trial court.

The matter is now listed for further orders on September 26.