High Court observations against trial judges discourage grant of bail; leads to huge volume of litigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the practice of High Courts making adverse remarks against trial judges who grant bail makes judicial officers reluctant to grant bail. (Sarita Swami v. State of Rajasthan).A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka noted that such conduct in turn increases the workload of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The judges observed,"In our view, the observations are not called for in the given scenario and in fact it is such an approach which discourages the trial Courts in granting bail resulting in huge volume of litigation before the High Court and this Court."The top court, accordingly, set aside the observations made against the appellant-judicial officer, as well as the directions for action against her. .The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a sessions judge against whom the Rajasthan High Court had, while cancelling the bail granted to a person, made adverse observations. In its order passed in July this year, the High Court noted that the first bail application by the murder-accused in the case was dismissed on merits. However, the second one filed only twenty days later had been allowed on the grounds that the investigation, prior to the filing of the chargesheet, had revealed that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The High Court passed adverse remarks against the appellant judge after noting that there was no change in circumstances to warrant grant of bail.Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha of the High Court had observed,"...learned Sessions Judge acted arbitrarily and against the judicial propriety. So, the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the accused-respondent deserves to be cancelled...Let a copy of this order be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action against the learned Sessions Judge on the Administrative side as may be deemed fit by His Lordship.".The top court allowed the appeal against this order after saying that it had no hesitation in setting aside the observations and directions in question.Advocates Abhishek Gupta and Nikhil Kumar Singh appeared for the appellant judicial officer..[Read order]