'There Shouldn't Be Even A Single Day's Delay In Liberty Matters' : Supreme Court Expresses Concern At HC Delaying Bail Hearing

The Supreme Court today (May 29) expressed concerns over the delay by the Delhi High Court in deciding a bail plea despite repeated observations of the Apex Court on the need to expeditiously hear matters relating to civil liberties of citizens. The Court considered the fact that the bench before which the bail plea is pending was to sit during the vacation bench and asked the bench to decide the matter on June 9. The order said : "This Court has time and again emphasised the importance of the liberty of citizens. Time and again, it is said that there should not be even a single day's delay in deciding the matter pertaining to the liberty of citizens."We see no reason as to why the matter should have taken such a long time to decide it either way."The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the bail plea by Vedpal Singh Tanwar, who is a key person belonging to Goverdhan Mines and Minerals. Notably, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached assets worth 25.16 crores in relation to illegal stone and mineral mining in Haryana. The ED investigation occurred after a complaint was registered by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HPCB) against Govershan Mines and Minerals. Tanwar was arrested on May 31, 2024, his regular bail was rejected by the Special Court in Saket. In April 2025 he got interim bail on medical grounds. Sr Advocate Vikas Pahwa, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court has been delaying taking a final decision in the matter. He explained : " It has become like a vicious circle, we argue the matter, the ED takes time, then the roaster changes and then we argue again, again takes time, and this is the 4th time that we are arguing the matter. Bail is not being disposed of at all. I was arrested on May 31, 2024, till date, no cognisance has been taken on the prosecution complaint by the Hon'ble Court." ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the ED, referred to the custody chart and pointed out that for 212 days the petitioner was on interim bail. She refuted the contention that ED had sought adjournments, instead, she emphasised that " after the matter is heard fully, the judges have recused- that's why it has not been heard." Tanwar's total custody in jail has been 115 days, and custody in hospital was 38 days, while for 212 days he was on interim bail, she added.Tanwar's counsel reverted that the judges have not recused, but the roster has changed thrice instead. He stressed that the arguments on merits were concluded on November 27, 2024, and a total of 26 hearings took place. Considering the same, the Court stressed that as a principle, the Courts are required to expeditiously decide on matters concerning the personal liberty of citizens. The concerned bench of the High Court was directed to hear the matter on June 9 during the vacation bench hearings. The bench passed the following order : "This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of liberty of citizens. Time and again it is said that there should not be even single day's delay in deciding the matter pertaining to liberty of citizens. "We see no reason as to why the matter should have taken such a long time for deciding it either way.""We are informed that the Hon'ble Judge is sitting from 8-16 the June. We therefore direct the Delhi High Court Registry to list the matter before the learned Judge who is sitting in the vacation bench on 9th of June to decide the matter after hearing the parties forthwith."Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sirhaan Seth, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhilash Kr. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sankriti Shakuntla Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jayesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Ms. Ritika Nigam, Adv.Case details : VEDPAL SINGH TANWAR Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT| W.P.(Crl.) No. 231/2025Related- 'In Matters Of Personal Liberty, High Courts Can't Keep Matter Pending For Long': Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27 Adjournments By HC

'There Shouldn't Be Even A Single Day's Delay In Liberty Matters' : Supreme Court Expresses Concern At HC Delaying Bail Hearing

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags