‘Not A Tool Of Oppression’: Supreme Court Tells High Courts To Avoid Harsh Remarks On Trial Judges

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s March 6, 2026 order, which had set aside a Magistrate’s decision granting bail to the accused in a case arising out of a tenancy dispute.

Issuing notice and granting leave, the Court came down heavily on the High Court for interfering with a bail order in a magistrate-triable case after a prolonged delay and on what it described as “absolutely hyper-technical and untenable reasons.”

The dispute stemmed from a tenancy claim over a portion of a building purchased by the accused. The complainant had earlier filed a civil suit in 2016 seeking declaration of tenancy rights but later withdrew it in 2017 after stating on oath that the matter had been amicably settled. Despite this, she subsequently filed a criminal complaint, leading to registration of an FIR in December 2017 under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The accused was arrested in May 2018 but was granted interim bail within days, which was later confirmed by the Magistrate. The complainant challenged the bail order before the High Court, which allowed the revision petition in 2026 and cancelled the bail, citing procedural irregularities such as improper authentication of the order and lack of adequate hearing to the complainant.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had “misdirected itself” by ignoring crucial facts, including the prior civil settlement between the parties. The bench observed that the FIR appeared “highly belated” and that the dispute bore clear “civil overtones,” making it a case where denial of bail was unwarranted.

The Court emphasised that once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without the presence of “cogent and overwhelming circumstances.” It reiterated settled law that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and requires evidence of factors such as interference with the investigation, evasion of justice, or abuse of liberty.

“In the present case, none of these conditions were satisfied,” the bench noted, adding that the High Court failed to identify any supervening circumstances justifying cancellation of bail after such a long lapse of time.

The Supreme Court also took strong exception to the High Court’s reliance on procedural lapses under Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985. It held that such rules, which govern administrative aspects of court functioning, cannot override substantive provisions of criminal law unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that the final order granting bail could have been set at naught merely on perceived infirmities in an interim order,” the Court observed.

The Court also expressed concern over a growing trend of High Courts passing strictures against subordinate judiciary in judicial orders. It cautioned that such remarks could demoralise judicial officers and adversely impact their careers.

“The High Court is expected to act as a guardian of the district judiciary. Supervisory jurisdiction should not become a tool of oppression,” the bench said, suggesting that concerns regarding judicial conduct be addressed through in-house administrative mechanisms instead.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order in its entirety and restored the bail granted to the accused.