Improper For Authorities To Pick Up Trivial Omissions In Supreme Court's Order & Defy It : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that it is improper for authorities to defy an order of the Supreme Court citing certain trivial omissions. The Court's observation came in a matter where the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities delayed the release of an undertrial on the ground that the Supreme Court's order granting him bail had omitted to mention one sub-section, although all other...
The Supreme Court recently observed that it is improper for authorities to defy an order of the Supreme Court citing certain trivial omissions. The Court's observation came in a matter where the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities delayed the release of an undertrial on the ground that the Supreme Court's order granting him bail had omitted to mention one sub-section, although all other particulars related to the crime were clear from the order.
In June, the Court had reprimanded the authorities for delaying the release of the prisoner named Aftab, who was booked under the UP Unlwaful Religious Conversions Prohibition Act, over a clerical omission to mention sub-section (i) in the bail order [it mentioned only Section 5 instead of Section 5(i)], and directed the State to pay him an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakhs. The Court had also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to conduct an inquiry into the matter.
As a follow-up hearing, the matter was listed before Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan on November 17. The bench was surprised to note that the enquiry report of the District Judge put the blame on the Additional District & Sessions Judge (who passed the release order). The bench wondered how the Additional District and Sessions Judge could be blamed when he was acting in furtherance of the Supreme Court's order.
Justice Pardiwala asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati(for State of Uttar Pradesh): "Why should the Additional District and Sessions Judge be solely held accountable for the delay occurring in release? What is the idea of holding him responsible? If the order is passed by the Supreme Court, how is this officer [responsible]?"
He further remarked: "Just because sub-section (i) of Section 5 was not there, the man was not released, and he stayed behind for 28 days. If they notice some discrepancy, why it got resolved only after 28 days?"
Bhati responded that the issue was only resolved when the accused applied for the modification of the bail order. "We could have mentioned that this is just an aberration or the other side could have mentioned it," Bhati said.
Justice Viswanathan orally remarked that this is nothing but the Executive sitting over judicial orders.
"Executive sitting over our judicial orders. Absolutely useless pretext, Ms Bhati. If you say that the Chief Justice of India makes an order of bail, and when sub-section (i) is not mentioned, when the crime number, accused, sections, police station and everything is clear to all stakeholders involved. Forget this particular application. What can happen if the executive decides to disobey the orders on some lame pretext," Justice Viswanathan averred.
The Court gave an opportunity to the concerned officer to share his side of the story.
It ordered:
"In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 25 June, 2025, that is the order passed in miscellaneous application 1086/2025. An inquiry was undertaken by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in respect of the delay in releasing the accused, original petitioner Aftab, from prison, in pursuance of bail order dated 29.4.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2295/2025.
Para 11 of the order dated 25.6.25 is also relevant.
This order dated 25.6.26, was also passed in the very same miscellaneous application 1086/2025 as regards initiating an appropriate inquiry. Paragraph 11 reads thus:
“11. We feel that instead of the Director General/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons) conducting the enquiry in this case it should be conducted by a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The enquiry will focus on the reason behind the delay in enlarging the applicant/petitioner from prison and as to why he was detained beyond 27.05.2025. The reasons given by the State is the non mentioning of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Is that the real reason or was there something sinister will Independently, also the be Principal enquired District into. and Sessions Judge will also enquire as to whether there was any gross negligence on the part of the Prison Authorities or other officials in this episode and if there are any Officers who are responsible.
We have the enquiry report before us today. There are many aspects of the inquiry report to be looked into in detail. However, we take notice of para 8 of the inquiry report, which reads thus.
“In view of the above discussions, the officer Sri Junaid Muzaffar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad is solely accountable for the delay occurring in release of the accused Aftab and he did not act with full care and attention having regard to the gravity and nature of the case. Thus, the officer has been responsible for the release of the accused after an inordinate delay."
Before we proceed to pass appropriate further orders, we would like to call for the remarks of Shri Junaid Muzaffar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court 12, Ghaziabad. The learned judicial officer shall study the report and put forth his comments or remarks insofar as para 8 of the report is concerned. Once we are in a position to understand the stance of the learned judge, we will shall proceed with the matter forward.
We have taken the lapse very seriously. When an order is passed by the Highest Court and that too the first Court, that is the Court presided over by the Chief Justice of India, it is not proper at all for the authorities to pick up trivial omissions in the order and understand the same in their own manner. We shall deal with this aspect once we receive the remarks/comments. Registry to call for the remarks at the earliest, and once received, the report of concerned judicial officer shall be placed before us. The Registry, while informing the learned judge, shall also forward one copy of the inquiry report along with one set of papers of the entire litigation."
Matter will now be heard on December 8.
Case Details: AFTAB Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|MA 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025