Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India's decision to grant bail to the former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, after a prolonged period of incarceration, underscores its role as a guardian of individual freedoms. By emphasizing the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law, the Court reinforced that personal liberty remains a fundamental right.  

The judgment reiterated the longstanding principle that bail should be the norm, not imprisonment, and affirmed that convict's right to a fair and speedy trial, integral to Article 21 of the Constitution, had been violated. 

What are the Background and Court observation of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation? 

• Background: 
  • Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister filed petitions seeking bail in the liquor policy case. 
  • He was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 26th  February , 2023, and by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 9th March, 2023, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) respectively. 
  • The Delhi High Court rejected his second bail plea on 21st May, 2023, citing grave misuse of power and breach of trust. 
  • On 4th June, 2023, the Supreme Court disposed of his earlier bail plea after receiving an assurance that the chargesheet would be filed by 3rd July, 2024. 
  • He was granted liberty to revive his bail prayers after the final complaint/chargesheet was filed. 
  • On 16th July, 2023, a Supreme Court bench issued notice on Sisodia's new pleas. 
• Court Observations: 
  • Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that while the ED claimed the trial could have commenced if not for his alleged delays, it also sought time until  3rd July, 2024, to file the final chargesheet. 
  • The Court questioned the realistic timeline for the conclusion of the trial, considering the 493 witnesses involved. 
  • The bench asked about the distinction between "policy" and "criminality" in the case's context. 
  • The Court noted that the period of 6-8 months fixed for completion of the trial, as per the order passed on 30th October, 2022, had already elapsed. 
  • The bench observed that Sisodia had been in custody for 16 months, and the trial remained at the same stage as in October 2023. 
  • The Court questioned the ED's claim that Sisodia's applications were causing delays, noting that most of these applications were allowed by the trial court. 
  • The bench sought clarification on how the trial could proceed on a day-to-day basis without the completion of preliminary procedures under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC) and framing of charges for 40 accused. 

What are the Earlier Observations of the Supreme Court? 

• The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, drew upon its prior observations in Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2024) and a series of precedents concerning the right to speedy trial and bail. The Court referenced 
  • Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977)  
  • P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 
  • Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022)  
  • Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 
• The judgment echoes the principle articulated in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975) and reiterated in Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi (2005), "the mortality of justice at the hands of law" due to procedural technicalities. 

How has the Supreme Court's Ruling on Bail Reaffirmed Individual Liberty and Constitutional Rights? 

• The Court emphasizes individual liberty within our constitution and that such liberty cannot be subordinated to prosecutorial discretion alone.  
• The judgment states that fundamental rights are inherent to human existence, characterizing them as "born in flesh, carried in our bodies from birth to death." 
• The Court recognized that  rights form the foundation of our legal system, and any law or process that fails to render justice must be subject to amendment. 
• While acknowledging Justice Robert Jackson's observation in Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943) that the ultimate guarantee of civil liberties lies in public vigilance, the Court emphasized its own crucial role in providing auxiliary protection against encroachments on human rights, deeming this a litmus test for a vibrant democracy. 
• In granting bail pending final adjudication, the Court has addressed previous critiques of ambivalence, despite the existence of legal and factual grounds for bail.  
• This decision serves to reinforce the principle that undertrials should not be subjected to prolonged incarceration, which results in irretrievable loss of freedom, reputation, privacy, and dignity without due recourse or compensation. 
• The Court's judgment implicitly calls for a recalibration of national politics, advocating for a shift away from personal animosities towards a more ennobling pursuit of justice and dignity for all citizens, thereby reinvigorating a democracy under strain. 

Conclusion  

The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Deputy CM of Delhi is a big deal for personal freedom in India. It shows that the Court is serious about protecting people's rights, even when facing pressure from powerful government agencies. By letting him out of jail, while his case continues, the judges are saying that keeping someone locked up for a long time without a trial is not fair.