Summary
The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court, while deciding a bail application, against a Sessions Judge who had not set out the accused's antecedents in the tabular format directed in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan. It held that those directions are only suggestions, that constitutional courts cannot dictate the form of trial court bail orders, and that explanations from judicial officers can be called for only on the administrative side.
Issues
- Whether the Rajasthan High Court's direction in Jugal Kishore that every bail order must contain the accused's antecedents in a prescribed tabular chart is binding on trial courts.
- Whether non-compliance with that direction by a Sessions Judge amounts to indiscipline or contempt.
- Whether the High Court, on the judicial side, could call for an explanation from a judicial officer and record adverse findings against him while deciding a bail application.
Provisions considered
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar, the Court noted that superior courts may correct errors of courts judicially subordinate to them and expunge unwarranted observations, criticising erroneous orders but avoiding personal remarks on the conduct of the judicial officer. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Held
- Constitutional courts may lay down principles governing bail and correct errors on the judicial side, but cannot interfere with trial courts' discretion by prescribing the form in which bail orders must be written. Antecedents are only one consideration; bail may be granted despite them, for instance on long incarceration or as default bail, and where bail is refused on antecedents the court may simply refer to the nature of the offences and penal provisions. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The directions in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Jugal Kishore are not binding directions; at most they are suggestions which need not be followed in every case, and their non-compliance by a judicial officer cannot be treated as indiscipline or contempt. Similar directions in another Rajasthan High Court order had already been set aside by the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16)
- Even if a judicial officer were guilty of indiscipline, the High Court ought not to call for his explanation by a judicial order; that can be done only on the administrative side. The High Court's orders calling for explanation, the list of bail orders and a compliance report, and the impugned order finding fault with the appellant, were unwarranted and illegal and a waste of judicial time. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Higher courts should criticise erroneous orders rather than the judicial officer personally, and must show restraint, because the officer cannot defend himself against remarks made on the judicial side and his career may be damaged. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; adverse remarks in the impugned order of 05.05.2023 expunged, the finding of disobedience and indiscipline and the direction to place the matter before the Chief Justice set aside; observations and directions in the orders of 04.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 set aside and not to be the basis of administrative action; copy to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side.