Supreme Court Flags Reluctance Of Trial Judges To Grant Bail Due To Fear Of Disciplinary Action

The Supreme Court today flagged that trial court judges are increasingly reluctant to exercise discretion in granting bail due to a lurking fear of disciplinary action, warning that such an atmosphere undermines judicial independence and burdens higher courts with bail matters.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Vishwanathan observed that initiation of departmental proceedings against judicial officers on mere suspicion or for alleged wrong exercise of discretion is one of the primary reasons why judges at the district level hesitate to grant bail even in deserving cases.“Initiation of departmental proceedings on mere suspicion is one of the primary causes why trial court judges are reluctant when it comes to exercising discretion for the purpose of grant of bail. It should not happen that because of the lurking fear in the mind of a trial court judge of some administrative action being taken that even in deserving cases well within the principles of law, bail is declined. This is one reason why the High Courts are flooded with bail applications. The same is the scenario in the Supreme Court”, he said.The Court made these observations while setting aside the dismissal of a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, who was removed on allegations of corruption and adopting a “double standard” in deciding bail applications under the MP Excise Act.Justice Pardiwala, in his concurring judgment, said that it should not happen that, because of a constant fear of administrative or disciplinary action, trial court judges decline bail even in cases that are well within settled principles of law. He noted that this fear-driven approach is one of the reasons why High Courts and the Supreme Court are flooded with bail applications.Justice Pardiwala said that courts of the district judiciary wield powers that are essential for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India, and when their autonomy is compromised and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, democracy and the rule of law suffer.Emphasising the importance of an independent judiciary, Justice Pardiwala said that for the functioning of democracy, judicial officers must be able to dispense justice without fear.“Over a period of time the trial court judges have exhibited tendency to shirk from the solemn judicial function and responsibility when it comes to exercising discretion in matters relating to bails. Courts of the district judiciary wield powers necessary for the functioning of the justice delivery system in India and when their autonomy is compromised by higher courts and fear takes precedence over judicial duties, democracy and the rule of law suffer. For the functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount”, he emphasised.The Court underlined that a mere wrong order or an incorrect exercise of discretion in granting bail, by itself and without anything more, cannot be a ground to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer. It asked High Courts, which exercise supervisory control over the district judiciary, to ensure that judicial officers are not put through the ordeal of departmental inquiries only because an order is perceived to be erroneous.Case no. – SLP(C) No. 24570/2024Case Title – Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 2Click here to read the judgment

Supreme Court Flags Reluctance Of Trial Judges To Grant Bail Due To Fear Of Disciplinary Action

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court said that due to this tendency, High Courts and Supreme Court are flooded with bail petitions.

Tags