High Courts cannot direct trial courts to write bail order in particular manner: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) do not have the authority to direct trial courts to adopt a specific format or manner for writing orders in bail cases [Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih reaffirmed that Constitutional courts cannot encroach upon the discretionary powers of trial courts by prescribing a specific format for writing orders in bail cases."Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. One Judge of a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial courts should use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that another format is better," the Court observed..The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by a District and Sessions Judge (appellant) challenging the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against the manner in which the judge had decided a bail application..The case stemmed from a bail application filed by the accused in an attempt to murder case. The District and Sessions Judge had rejected the bail plea and the order was subsequently challenged before the Rajasthan High Court.The High Court granted bail to the accused but while doing so, it also made adverse observations against the Sessions Judge.It criticised the Sessions Judge for not complying with specific directions of the High Court in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan regarding the documentation of the accused's criminal antecedents in a prescribed tabular format in his order rejecting bail.Due to High Court's remarks, the Sessions judge faced scrutiny for not incorporating the required details of the accused's previous criminal cases in his bail order.The High Court's criticism escalated to the point wherein it suggested that the actions of the Sessions Judge could be seen as indiscipline or contempt of court. Following this, the High Court demanded an explanation from him and also asked him to submit reports on his compliance with the directions.However, despite the appellant's explanation citing excessive work pressure as the reason for the oversight, the High Court continued to issue orders that questioned his adherence to judicial instructions.The High Court's actions included directing the appellant to provide a list of bail applications he had disposed of and to confirm whether he had followed the earlier directives regarding the documentation of antecedents.Aggrieved, the District Judge moved the Supreme Court..The top court noted that the directions issued by the High Court to trial courts in Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions and at best, they can be taken as mere suggestions."If a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts. Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case," the Court said.While setting aside the adverse remarks against the judge, the Court noted that High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders."The adverse remarks and observations made against the appellant in the aforesaid orders cannot be the basis for taking any action against the appellant on the administrative side," the Supreme Court clarified..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and advocates Javed Khan, Vanya Gupta and Sandeep Mishra appeared for the judge.Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak and advocates Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, BS Rajesh Agrajit and Yashika Bum, appeared for State of Rajasthan..[Read Judgment]