THE TOP COURT AS CUSTODIAN OF LIBERTIES

THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Manish Sisodia has reignited discussions on the balance between individual liberties and the application of stringent laws in India. This case highlights the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure justice is not delayed or denied.

THE ISSUES:

• Right to Liberty and Bail as a Rule: The Supreme Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” a standpoint first articulated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1977. This principle was reaffirmed in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates this fundamental right.
• Right to a Speedy Trial: The judgment highlighted that the right to a fair and speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21. The Court noted that the extensive documentation and numerous witnesses in Sisodia’s case could lead to inordinate delays, thus infringing on this right. Various judgments have upheld this principle, including those in Kashmira Singh (1977) and Chidambaram (2020).
• Constitutional Mandate vs. Procedural Delays: The Court underscored the need for constitutional mandates to prevail over procedural delays. It ruled that the right to bail in cases of delay should be interpreted within Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This interpretation aligns with the Court’s previous decisions, such as in Sheikh Javed Iqbal (2024).
• Judicial Custodianship of Liberties: Citing the judgment in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. The State of Maharashtra (2020), the Court reaffirmed its role as the custodian of individual liberties. It emphasized that liberty is a tenacious right that must be protected against the misuse of stringent penal laws like the PMLA, which has seen low conviction rates despite numerous cases.
• Prosecutorial Overreach and Natural Justice: It questions whether the Court’s reliance on prosecutorial assurances about trial timelines undermines natural justice principles. It suggests that allowing the prosecutor to influence detention periods could contravene the principles of fairness and impartiality, which are foundational to a fair trial.
• Impact on Broader Legal Framework and Political Context: The judgment critiques the criminal justice system’s delays and the potential misuse of laws for political purposes. It calls for a shift in political practices towards justice and dignity, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding civil liberties against executive overreach.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Reaffirm the Principle of ‘Bail, Not Jail’: The Supreme Court should consistently uphold the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” as Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer mentioned in 1977. This principle is crucial to prevent pre-trial detention from becoming a punishment. It should be universally applied, even under stringent laws like the PMLA. Judicial committees have highlighted the reluctance of lower courts to grant bail, urging adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
• Ensure Speedy Trials: Trial delays infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial and can lead to prolonged incarceration without conviction. The judiciary must prioritize speedy trials to uphold justice. The 221st Law Commission Report has recommended increasing the number of judges and using technology to expedite trials.
• Reform Stringent Laws Like PMLA: Stringent conditions under laws like the PMLA often lead to misuse and prolonged detention without trial. Reforms should ensure these laws are not weaponized against individuals. The Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement emphasized the need to read the right to bail into Section 439 Cr.PC and Section 45 of the PMLA in cases of delay.
• Strengthen Judicial Oversight on Prosecution: Judicial oversight is necessary to prevent prosecutors from having undue influence over detention decisions and to ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld. Articles 14 and 21 mandate fairness and equality before the law, requiring judicial scrutiny to prevent prosecutorial overreach. The Supreme Court has warned prosecuting agencies and lower courts against routine detention orders, advocating for judicial education to uphold bail principles.
• Enhance Legal Aid and Access to Justice: Strengthening legal aid services and ensuring access to justice for all, especially those unable to afford legal representation, is crucial for upholding civil liberties. Article 39A of the Indian Constitution directs the state to ensure that citizens do not deny justice because of economic or other disabilities, reinforcing the need for robust legal aid systems. The Satender Kumar Antil case emphasized the need for equitable access to bail, highlighting the systemic issues undertrial prisoners face.

THE CONCLUSION:

By addressing systemic issues such as prolonged trials and prosecutorial overreach, India can better uphold the principles of justice and liberty. The Sisodia case is pivotal for re-evaluating the country’s commitment to constitutional rights and fair legal processes.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:

Q.1 ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution and founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. 2021

Q.2 Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023

Q.3 Can the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and the elected government of Delhi? Examine. 2018

Q.4 From inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. Considering the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy. 2014

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q.1 Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail on the principles of individual liberty and the right to a speedy trial in India. Analyze the broader challenges within the Indian judicial system, particularly concerning applying stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-top-court-as-custodian-of-liberties/article68517371.ece