'Judicial Impropriety' : Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Modifying Bail Condition When Bail Order Was Under Challenge In SC

The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala High Court for 'judicial impropriety' in modifying bail conditions while its anticipatory bail order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court. “we are constrained to observe that where the order granting anticipatory bail by the High Court was impugned in the instant special leave petition and this Court was seized of the matter, an order modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein, runs contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity. The proper administration of justice demands that when an order passed by the High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of the said order, the High Court must exercise restraint, as far as practicable, in passing any orders which can possibly have the effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous the proceedings pending before this Court.”, the Court said. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the accused-respondent no.1, after being granted an anticipatory bail and the challenge to the bail order being pending before the Supreme Court, had filed an application before the High Court seeking modification in the bail conditions, seeking permission to travel abroad (to Dubai for "immigration requirements"). Despite the Supreme Court being seized with the matter, the High Court passed an order modifying the bail condition, allowing the accused to travel abroad. The core issue was whether a High Court should hear and decide an application for modifying the conditions of an order (anticipatory bail) that is itself under challenge before the Supreme Court. Answering in the negative, the Court said “the orders passed by the High Court modifying the order which is under challenge before this Court, during the pendency of this special leave petition, is contrary to the judicial propriety and discipline which is expected from the High Court.” In support, the Court cited its case of Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services (1995), where it was held that a High Court should not entertain a petition on the same issue already pending before the Supreme Court, calling it a violation of judicial propriety and discipline. Resultantly, the Court set aside the High Court's order modifying the bail condition, and issued the notice to the accused seeking an explanation as to why her anticipatory bail should not be cancelled due to this concealment of facts. Cause Title: SREEJA D G & ORS. VERSUS ANITHA R. NAIR & ANR.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 874Click here to read/download the orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V Chitmbaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mr. C Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. E Krishna Perumal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ragenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Ms. Hina Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.

'Judicial Impropriety' : Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Modifying Bail Condition When Bail Order Was Under Challenge In SC

Yash Mittal

Tags