Supreme Court Prods Centre on Bail Legislation
The Supreme Court, highlighting concerns over objectivity and accountability within the criminal justice system, has directed the Centre on whether it is considering a new law to streamline the bail granting process. This directive came as part of a February 13 order, which also includes a comprehensive list of inquiries and compliance requirements directed at various High Courts, States, and Union Territories.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti revisited its July 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, questioning the Centre about the progress on a proposed bail law aimed at reducing unnecessary arrests for offences carrying a maximum punishment of up to seven years in jail. In the 2022 judgment, the top court underscored the importance of preventing the country from becoming a "police state." It issued guidelines for investigating agencies and courts regarding arrests and bail grants, aimed at ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of power reminiscent of colonial times.
In its recent order, the specific queries directed towards the Central government included:
1. Whether any bail law is under contemplation or preparation.
2. Whether an assessment has been conducted to determine the necessity of establishing additional special courts (CBI) in districts with high case pendency, supported by relevant data.
3. Whether investigative agencies under the Central government's jurisdiction, apart from the CBI, are adhering to the directives laid out by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another.
Emphasising the need for consistency and predictability in judicial decisions, the Court suggested the Indian government consider creating a dedicated “Bail Act”. In this regard, it said, “Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation...The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails”. This recommendation was part of a broader set of guidelines aimed at reforming the bail system, with the court also requesting compliance reports from states and Union territories.
The bench mandated the Union to disclose any ongoing preparations for such a law and to evaluate the necessity for additional special courts for CBI cases in districts with a high volume of pending cases, providing an eight-week timeframe for a response. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra was involved as amicus curiae to aid the court's deliberations.
The Supreme Court's proactive measures during a time marked by extensive detentions and delayed bail proceedings have underscored the need for judicial reform. By intervening in cases where individuals, such as Mohammed Zubair and those involved in the Bhima-Koregaon case, faced long incarcerations for charges with less severe penalties, the Court highlighted systemic issues.
The bench also reviewed how state police and central agencies have adhered to guidelines against routine arrests. On February 13, it specifically directed the CBI to provide information regarding actions taken against officials for unnecessary arrests, underlining accountability within the agency.
The bench, in its order, stated, “It is directed to provide the particulars of First Information Reports (FIRs) of cognizable and non-bailable cases in which the mandate of Sections 41, 41-A of CrPC and Arnesh Kumar judgment has not been followed and consequently to provide the details of necessary actions that have been taken against erring police officers”.
In the aforementioned order, the top court laid emphasis on the implementation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) across all states and Union Territories. This SOP, titled “Guidelines and standard operating procedure for implementation of the scheme for support to poor prisoners”, designed to alleviate the conditions of undertrial prisoners, includes the establishment of empowered committees and provision of funds to help those unable to afford bail bonds or fines. The court has also asked for updated compliance reports regarding its earlier directives to minimise unnecessary arrests and streamline bail processes, highlighting a comprehensive approach towards reforming the criminal justice system.
Notably, in its 2022 judgment, the top court reiterated the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception,' while also highlighting the inherent principle of the presumption of innocence. The Court held that an inordinate delay in concluding a trial would also be a relevant factor in the grant of bail, while stating that, “Whatever the nature of the offence may be, a prolonged trial, appeal, or revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration would be violative of Article 21.”
The Court has scheduled the next phase of hearings for May 7, during which it will address issues pertaining to various States and Union Territories.