Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma gave directions to the High Courts for speedy disposal of bail applications.

• The Supreme Court observed this in the case of Rajanti Devi @ Rajanti Kumari v. The Union of India.

What was the Background of Rajanti Devi @ Rajanti Kumari v. The Union of India?

• The Miscellaneous Application was filed before court for consideration on the compliance report submitted by the Registry alongwith its office report.
• In accordance with the report, an anticipatory bail matter underwent a prolonged process, with the judge concerned reserving judgment on 07th April 2022.
  • After almost a year, on 04^th April 2023, the judgment was released.
• The court acknowledged the volume of bail applications but expressed concern over persistent delays and issued guidelines to address this issue.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC said that it is directed that all the courts shall scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued by this Court in the several decisions.
• The SC left it to the High Courts to evolve a system/mechanism to check and verify at the end of each month, the pendency of cases reserved for judgments and orders in each Court.

What was the Landmark Judgments cited by the Supreme Court?

• Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001):
  • The Chief Justices of the HCs may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.
  • That Chief Justices of the HCs, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the HCs to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.
  • On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter.
    • The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information.
    • Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
  • Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.
    • Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
  • If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the HC with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments.
    • It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.
• Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022):
  • The SC said that bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application.
  • Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.